RoR: Forum

Ed,

What embarrassment, what chagrin, to be declared a looser; and shame of shames, on a mere technicality.

The ultimate judge of all rhetorical arm-wrestling contests has declared you the winner. Looking for support, for encouragement, for anything that would prove me, the ultimate winner, I pleaded my case before the judge of all such contests, my wife.

She reviewed the films, asked questions, weighed all the pertinent data, and declared, "The winner is ..." (pregnant suspenseful silence) ... ED THOMPSON!

"What!?" I screamed. This is outrageous. I demand a recount. I'll sue. I demand my rights. What do you mean that Thompson guy is the winner. I had his hand bloodied I slammed it down so hard?

"But, Honey, he made me laugh a lot harder than you did?" the judge said.

Well, I know better than to engage in "futile rebellion against things that cannot be changed," and I know when I've been beaten, fair and square.

But, "I'll be back!"

Regi

Post 21

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 9:14pm

: - O (Regi, why the long face?)

Well, now she must have that ole' sense-of-life spirit, Regi!

;-))

Ed (a shameless gloater)

Post 22

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 5:48pm

Regi quoted "God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, courage to change things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

That is my favorite quote, but I never knew until now that Ayn Rand had anything to say about it. Ironically, I first read it stenciled upon the Kevlar helmet I was first issued by the supply section years ago (perhaps by some Marine or Sailor who came before me). The inscription left out the "God" part so I did not learn until later that it was from a theologian. And who said an Objectivist could learn nothing from his philosophical rivals? I have tried to live my life by that principle ever since, and it has served me well in my military career. Time and again, I have been faced with the dilemma of being ordered to do something I disagreed with, by a superior I judged to be incompetent, and from those experiences I learned to pick and choose my battles. If I had fought every battle that came my way tooth and nail, I would be in the brig breaking big rocks into little rocks, and for what? To make a statement? No thank you. Futile gestures against hopeless odds may make for entertaining fiction (e.g. the French students who manned the barricade in "Les Miserables") but life can be more complicated than literature allows for. It is possible for me to be honest and have integrity without sacrificing my life or career. I only fought the battles I had a reasonable chance of winning, even if sometimes the odds appeared desperate (but not hopeless). Now that I think about it, I guess it was not so ironic that it was stenciled on a Kevlar helmet after all.

In spite of the source, I think it is a principle that the Objectivist movement (if there is such a thing anymore) can follow.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 7/11, 5:50pm)

Post 23

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 7:59pm

Hi, Regi.

>>Now here is a secret. If everyone in the world lived their life as Bill lives his, you would have your ideal world.<<

Thank you, Regi, for explaining how my "ilk" has done nothing to make Sam dependent upon the government.

I've been the fly in the ointment of this discussion about Joe's perfect world, because it is utopian. As you wryly noted in an earlier post, enough hell has been visited upon us by those trying to build heaven here. If the 20th century hasn't been a lesson to us all of the evil of utopianism, I suppose nothing will.

One of the things that caused me to keep a distance from Objectivism is the utopianism of its politics. Utopianism is utterly incompatible with individuality and self-interest. The pursuit of utopia means subordinating all to THE perfect ideal; and that which cannot be subordinated must be destroyed. So it matters not to me what that ideal is once it is ensconced in utopianism, because the road to utopia is ALWAYS the road to serfdom (to be a phrase).

That's why I always thought the real hero of Objectivism was not the proselytizer John Galt, but Hank Reardon before his conversion (or perhaps Howard Roarke, though he is a bit psychopathic for my tastes ;). If Objectivism is to be useful in daily life, it's as a creed that gives a man the intellectual underpinnings to lead with integrity an independent, productive life in the here and now; not as a blueprint for a Galt's Gulch that will never be.

Regards,
Bill

Post 24

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:39pm

Hi, Ed.

>>My sentiments exactly.<<

I would appreciate it if closer attention were paid to what I have written in this thread. I do use words with precision and with the plain meaning as much as possible. Sam's interpretation of my posts are, in a word, perverse. How he renders my unwillingness to let the tax code have ANY impact upon the life I choose as slavery or collaboration is beyond me. Why anyone who has taken a moment to read what I wrote would agree with Sam, I haven't the faintest.

>>Now this involves taking the "Big Picture" perspective into account. The "golden mean" to be aimed at here will involve not becoming overly concerned with what others - including politicians - do. However, it will not involve NOT BEING CONCERNED AT ALL, as Regi and Bill seem to claim.<<

First of all, we really need to dispense with a major piece of nonsense: We do not live under tyranny in the United States. Despite the economic cost of the welfare state and its corrupting influences upon society, 21st-century America is certainly one of the very best times and places throughout the course of history a person could live in. To the extent that the government burdens us, we have foolishly voted for the politicians who create these burdens. So I have little sympathy for those Objectivists who complain about the welfare state, demand something must be done, and then mount a mantle of nobility by avoiding practical politics.

I have no interest in wasting my time on things I cannot change. So you won't see me in the amen corner with those Objectivists who preach not voting for viable candidates because they are not "pure", especially when they have no realistic plan for making a "pure" candidate viable. Better to vote for some "impure" change in the right direction than none at all. Nor do I have any patience for those Objectivists who will not reckon with reality. Great change is not in the cards now. The attachment to the welfare state is too great for the majority in this country. Nothing but its collapse will provide that opportunity.

Fortunately, demographics may bring its fall within the next few decades, but I see no serious Objectivist political discourse on how to exploit this. After all, its no secret that Social Security and Medicare will run dry in the coming years. That occurrence will mean a profound change in the attitudes of voters. So what to do about it? A lot I would think from those who claim we must work to disband the welfare state. But I hear nothing, because all of this means delving into the grubby work of practical politics, and it appears to me most Objectivists would prefer to paint pretty pictures of what life should be like if damn reality wouldn't keep getting in the way.

So, Ed, I've never said politics shouldn't be a concern. It's a matter of choosing your battles. Change what you can, but it's irrational to sacrifice your happiness to futile wars.

Regards,
Bill

Post 25

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:42pm

Hi, Regi.

>>If you are waiting for society to learn Objectivism, for a new political administration, or any Objectivist program to succeed before being free, you will never be free. If you want freedom, you can have it, now, in this world, but no government or movement is going to provide it for you.<<

Well, once again, you have expressed in one elegant paragraph what it took me several to stumble through to say the same thing.

Regards,
Bill

Post 26

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 10:33pm

Regi asks "What do you mean by 'fight?'". This must inevitably be answered within a context. Now imagine you've got the world I described, and everyone's all happy and go-lucky. Now some thug comes in, decides he wants to take over. Or maybe some politician comes along and says a little bit of taxation is necessary to help the poor. Or some religious nut comes along preaching the evils of self-interest, and how we must sacrifice for his goals.

I think it should be obvious that a world where the people ignore threats to their freedom, or cave in at the first possible moment, isn't an ideal world. It's the same reason I don't think politics is the primary thing that needs changing. Even if we managed to elect some libertarian as President (and he didn't surrender to every two-bit thug in the world), what kind of changes could he make with a population who genuinely believes altruism, and by extension violent force, is moral? If he gets rid of the income tax, will they just impeach him? If he ends the war on drugs, will they just start it anew when he's gone?

And that's the point. Achieving a world of freedom without the fundamental cultural change is pointless. Freedom won't last unless it's combined with a willingness to fight for it. In a world where freedom is the norm, it may only be speaking out against tyranny. In a world where self-interest dominates, it may mean standing up and arguing against the altruists. And when someone grabs some guns to take over, it would mean a willingness to take up arms to defend against them. It's not enough to achieve some temporary measure of freedom. It needs to have a lasting foundation.

And so here is the truth to your secret. If everyone acted as Citizen Rat, the freedom would be lost in a heartbeat. When the first encroachments to liberty begin, he'd be on the front line saying "Hey, you can still survive. What are you complaining about? I say we don't bother". When the freedom is outlawed, he'd be there calling the victims "criminals", as he has in the past with tax-evaders. A world of Rats would be a world of excuses for tyranny. No thanks.

Post 27

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 10:59pm

Regi, I can't imagine what you mean by "If you want freedom, you can have it, now, in this world". I can only assume that once again you're abusing words. How is it that you can start a company, don't bother paying taxes, and not get arrested? How is it that you can walk along the street smoking pot and not get harassed? Or do you mean the freedom to hide from the government? Do you mean that you can enjoy the freedoms you have now? I'm almost curious how you'll twist and contort the meaning of words so you can ignore the fact that governments around the world use force to varying degrees against people.

And then there's the more curious things. Like you always say that you can't convince anyone, and so you never argue with people. And yet you spend a part of every day arguing here on SOLOHQ. Again, what twisting of meanings allows you to pretend you don't argue with people?

And then there's the fact that you have a website! Why is it that you have a website, which you occasionally advertise for, if you don't really think you can change anyone's minds? Or are you going to drop the context, say that you're not changing their minds because only they can, but you're providing them the information?

It's all very curious. You claim that working towards a better world is pointless, futile, and probably immoral. But how is it that you justify your own website? What's the part that makes it okay for you, but wrong for everyone else?

I'm also curious why you think it's impossible to make a change in this world. Given the number of people that have written to me telling me that my articles have changed their lives, or that I've introduced them to Ayn Rand and now they see everything clearly, or any number of other tangible results (and I'm relatively new at this...look at people like Lindsay Perigo), I have to say that the evidence seems to support the idea that we can make a difference. It's all nice and fine to know your limits, but setting them at zero is just a self-fulfilling prophecy waiting to happen. It may be that you personally have been unable to make a change in the world, but if that's true, it's your own problem.

And the next obvious mistake is to assume because we can't win everything overnight, nothing is worth doing. I hear that a lot. Impatient people who get frustrated at the rate of progress, and throw up their hands in defeat. No thanks.

And finally, you assume that this intellectual war we fight is a sacrifice, because we're not out living our lives. Well, what exactly is living our lives? Making quality friends? Educating ourselves? Learning new skills? Sharing experiences and idea? Practicing our reasoning and communication skills?

What would you rather people do?

Post 28

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:30pm

Bill said:
Sam's interpretation of my posts are, in a word, perverse.� How he renders my unwillingness to let the tax code have ANY impact upon the life I choose as slavery or collaboration is beyond me.� Why anyone who has taken a moment to read what I wrote would agree with Sam, I haven't the faintest.

To which I said:�
Now this involves taking the "Big Picture" perspective into account. The "golden mean" to be aimed at here will involve not becoming overly concerned with what others - including politicians - do. However, it will not involve NOT BEING CONCERNED AT ALL, as Regi and Bill seem to claim.

(Bill, notice how my personal concern - expressed in the last sentence above - with your "I-won't-let-taxes-disrupt-my-pursuit-of-value" stance is put in plain, straightforward terms with the qualifier "seem" in order to solicit your "sanction/unsanction" of it in case it is off-the-mark in any way)

Bill:�
First of all, we really need to dispense with a major piece of nonsense:� We do not live under tyranny in the United States.�

Ed:
Bill, don't presume to educate me about tyranny - I understand how much better we (in the US) have it then say, the people of:

The Chechen Republic
"Russian Federation security forces continued to act with virtual impunity in the conflict in the Chechen Republic, amid ongoing reports of their involvement in torture and 'disappearances'."

or Azerbaijan
" ... in Azerbaijan where a campaign by the state-sponsored media against several prominent human rights defenders culminated in violent attacks on their offices and raised fears for their safety and that of their families."

or China and Vietnam
"...many prisoners of conscience remained in jail for the peaceful expression of their political beliefs. In China and Viet Nam in particular, there were crack-downs on people using the Internet to download or circulate information on human rights and democracy."

or Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Indonesia
"Weak and corrupt criminal justice systems in countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia and Indonesia continued to impact negatively on human rights. Torture, "disappearances" and extrajudicial executions continued to be widespread across the region."

or Thailand
"The Thai government appeared to condone killings of drug suspects as one method of fighting drug trafficking and use in the country. According to official statements, 2,245 people suspected of trafficking or using drugs were killed during a three-month campaign starting in February."

or Pakistan
"In Pakistan, children continued to be sentenced to death,"

or Jordan
"In Jordan, proposals to amend Article 340 of the Penal Code (which relates to family killings) to make it more favourable to women were rejected by the Lower House of Parliament. The more frequently used Article 98, which allows for a reduced sentence for perpetrators whose crime was committed in a "fit of rage", remained on the statute books."

or the many "wonderful" governments of Africa
"Governments of countries such as Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Togo and Zimbabwe used malicious prosecution, arbitrary arrest and excessive force against demonstrators as tools of political repression. In some cases newspapers and radio stations were arbitrarily closed down."

"Violence against women continued to be widely seen as socially acceptable,"

" ... there continued to be different standards of evidence for sexual "offences" such as zina (involving consensual sexual relations above the age of consent), and culpable homicide was used as a charge in cases of abortion and miscarriage in some states in Nigeria. As a result, women, especially those from deprived economic backgrounds and with little formal education, were more likely than men to be convicted and sentenced to death or other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments for some crimes."

"They were raped and suffered other forms of sexual violence by perpetrators from different parties to the conflicts in Burundi, CAR, C�te d'Ivoire, the DRC, Liberia, Sudan, Uganda and elsewhere."

"Female genital mutilation continued to be widely practised in different forms in many countries,"

... Bill, I resent your equivocation of my reductio ad absurdum "tax-talk" with "outright tyranny." To my mind, this is something that one rational being would not try to put over on another. Yes, I understand that if I accept this equivocation, it allows you to show me how it "isn't so bad" if I were only to look around the world - but that simply is not the point. "The point" is that there IS A DOCUMENTED TREND here (the proportion of our earnings that is "redistributed" to taxes HAS TRIPLED since 1950) - and it is an immoral trend. I am not calling for another French Revolution, with capital "punishment" for the heads of State - which would only be appropriate when overthrowing tyrannies.

Bill:
To the extent that the government burdens us, we have foolishly voted for the politicians who create these burdens.� So I have little sympathy for those Objectivists who complain about the welfare state, demand something must be done, and then mount a mantle of nobility by avoiding practical politics.

Ed:
Bill, it has never been about the "politicians" ("In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."). You presume that we are actually getting a choice when the 2 corporate poster-boys are placed before us by their extravagant multi-million dollar campaigns (and the chance to make a $100,000 or so salary as our president). If Jefferson's quote above isn't clear, then read my quote on voting for a government, not a man (ie. not voting for someone's lauded plan for a refreshing, new administration of our current, unconstitutional government).

Bill:
I have no interest in wasting my time on things I cannot change.� So you won't see me in the amen corner with those Objectivists who preach not voting for viable candidates because they are not "pure", especially when they have no realistic plan for making a "pure" candidate viable.� Better to vote for some "impure" change in the right direction than none at all.�

Ed:
Bill, I disagree with you here. And I do so as respect as is possible, considering your finger-pointing rant against "Objectivists." As a man of unwavering principle, my view is that Michael Badnarik is the only vote in the coming election that isn't "thrown away." I am prepared to defend this position against your "unwavering pragmatism" view, if you care to continue this discussion.

Bill:
Nor do I have any patience for those Objectivists who will not reckon with reality.� Great change is not in the cards now.� The attachment to the welfare state is too great for the majority in this country.� Nothing but its collapse will provide that opportunity.
�
Ed:
Bill, by definition, "Great change" is never found "in the cards" with which we are currently playing (great change comes from great minds, not great cards); and it often comes unexpectedly - your presumptive foresight on this matter astounds me.

Bill:
After all, its no secret that Social Security and Medicare will run dry in the coming years.�

Ed:
Bill, I find this point of yours awful hard to square with another statement of yours:

"Despite the economic cost of the welfare state and�its corrupting influences upon society, 21st-century America is certainly one of the very best times and places throughout the course of history a person could live in."

Bill, if you plan on continuing this discussion with me, then I'm going to force you to pick between these 2 contradictory views. EITHER we're in "one of the very best times and places throughout the course of history a person could live in" OR we're in a country about to bankrupt itself due to a growing cesspool consisting of several successive administrations of a shamefully immoral impracticality.

Bill:
That occurrence will mean a profound change in the attitudes of voters.� So what to do about it?� A lot I would think from those who claim we must work to disband the welfare state.� But I hear nothing, because all of this means delving into the grubby work of practical politics, and it appears to me most Objectivists would prefer to paint pretty pictures of what life should be like if damn reality wouldn't keep getting in the way.
�
Ed:
At this juncture, I will not engage in finger-pointing or knee-jerk justifications. My defense involves an appeal to MacIntyre's 4 problems regarding "politics of the modern state." This list will be followed by his proposed solution and the subsequent tie-in to my - and several others' - activities right here on SOLOHQ:

1. " ... the exclusion from politics of philosophical questions concerning politics;"

2. " ... the closely related exclusion from political debate and decision-making of substantive issues concerning ways of life; "

3. " ... the fact that the activities of government are such that they are not in their effects neutral between ways of life, but undermine some and promote others."

4. "Political debate, whether in electoral campaigns, in legislatures or in governmental bureaucracies is rarely systematic or in any depth. It is not directed by canons of enquiry or committed to following through the implications of arguments."

Solution: "What is lacking in modern political societies is any type of institutional arena in which plain persons - neither engaged in academic pursuits nor professionals of the political life - are able to engage together in systematic reasoned debate, designed to arrive at a rationally well-founded common mind on how to answer questions about the relationship of politics to the claims of rival and alternative ways of life ..."

Bill, I challenge you to find an "arena" that out-does SOLO as a place where these "plain persons" who are "able to engage together in systematic reasoned debate" that is "designed to arrive at a rationally well-founded common mind on how to answer questions about the relationship of politics to the claims of rival and alternative ways of life"

Bill:
So, Ed, I've never said politics shouldn't be a concern.� It's a matter of choosing your battles.� Change what you can, but it's irrational to sacrifice your happiness�to futile wars.

Ed:
Bill, I am in full agreement with both your choice of the words used to make your point and the spirit to convey them in the manner in which you chose.

Post 29

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 8:53am

Joe, Joe, Joe ...

Will I never disabuse you of your penchant for straw men?

>>And so here is the truth to your secret. If everyone acted as Citizen Rat, the freedom would be lost in a heartbeat. When the first encroachments to liberty begin, he'd be on the front line saying "Hey, you can still survive. What are you complaining about? I say we don't bother". When the freedom is outlawed, he'd be there calling the victims "criminals", as he has in the past with tax-evaders. A world of Rats would be a world of excuses for tyranny. No thanks.<<

I do caution the starry-eyed against utopianism, for it is the surest path to hell. I offer that caution for the self-interested reason that I do not want to be dragged into their agenda, which is one of the malign tendencies of utopian projects if they gain any traction among the mob.

If I am of a mind to offer any further counsel, it is to live your life for yourself. Again this advice is self-interested. This world of ours would be a much better place if everyone stuck to fixing up the things around him rather than agitate for grand plans to rationalize an irreducibly complex and chaotic world.

But there is also benevolence in my advice. Too many are dismissive of the independence and productivity of their everyday lives, because what they have is less than an ideal that will never be achieved. To do so is to blind yourself to the world as it is and to see it for only what it fails to be. Once the perfect is the enemy of the good, any happiness founded upon the embrace of this conflict is irrational and ephemeral -- and the opportunity to find happiness in the good that the world does produce in abundance will be lost.

Regards,
Bill

Post 30

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 9:07am

Hi, Ed.

I'm pleased to see from your response that you wish to distinguish yourself from Sam's lack of seriousness. I did take your enthusiastic statement of agreement with him at face value, but I now see that I was wrong to do so. I also took your sloganeering in response to my reasoned dissent from Joe's utopianism as a lack of discrimination as to the political reality of life in these United States, but I once again see that I was wrong to do so. I am glad to be wrong about these things.

It appears that we also agree that we should not be completely disengaged from politics, that we should try to change what we can change, but that it is prudent to choose your battles. We shouldn't sacrifice ourselves to unwinnable agendas. I am also glad that I record our harmony in this regard.

So where's the disagreement with what I have written?

Regards,
Bill

Post 31

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 9:28am

Hi, Ed.

Having noted our general accord in my previous post, I will address what you saw as a contradiction in statements I have made in this thread.

Statement #1: >>After all, its no secret that Social Security and Medicare will run dry in the coming years.<<

Statement #2: >>Despite the economic cost of the welfare state and its corrupting influences upon society, 21st-century America is certainly one of the very best times and places throughout the course of history a person could live in.<<

Your challenge: >>Bill, if you plan on continuing this discussion with me, then I'm going to force you to pick between these 2 contradictory views. EITHER we're in "one of the very best times and places throughout the course of history a person could live in" OR we're in a country about to bankrupt itself due to a growing cesspool consisting of several successive administrations of a shamefully immoral impracticality.<<

What contradiction? The fact that the present isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better than any other time.

Yes, the welfare state is expensive. It destroys capital and it destroys the lives of those who become dependent upon it. However, no one is compelled to become dependent upon the welfare state. We all have the freedom to avoid its maw. The price of that freedom is paying for it in taxes. Such are the perverse incentives of the welfare state, but it does not stop any of us from living the lives we want for ourselves. If you objectively assess the REAL opportunities for living the life you choose for yourself, including taking account of technology and general prosperity, America today presents just about the best circumstances you are going to find.

Plus, there is the real prospect that the internal contradictions of the welfare state will soon bring its collapse. Would a bankrupt federal government be such an awful thing? Indeed, it may well present the greatest opportunity for fundamental political change in favor of liberty in several generations.

Ed, it's not that hard to understand where I coming from. There's a lot I want to accomplish with this life of mine. I'm not content to wait for the perfect opportunity to make the best of it. I could view the world in terms of how it fails to be perfect. I prefer, however, to identify that which is good right here and now and seize that opportunity to achieve my goals. In short, MY glass is half-full. If that means I'm not available as a warrior to tilt at windmills for the latest utopian project, it doesn't mean I won't raise the standard when I can effect real political change that benefits me.

Regards,
Bill

Post 32

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 9:31am

Hi, Joe.

>>Or some religious nut comes along preaching the evils of self-interest, and how we must sacrifice for his goals.<<

You mean like John Galt recruiting Hank Reardon to abandon his business to help Galt ruin the economy?

Regards,
Bill

Post 33

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 10:35am

">>Or some religious nut comes along preaching the evils of self-interest, and how we must sacrifice for his goals.<<

You mean like John Galt recruiting Hank Reardon to abandon his business to help Galt ruin the economy?"

you really did miss the point of atlas shrugged if you think that the "shruggings" of those galt recruited were an act of sacrifice for galt's "higher cause". the entire point is that IT IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO SHRUG, that the world they live in now HAS NOTHING OF VALUE TO OFFER THEM, is only getting worse, and with each passing day is more and more of a threat to them. thusly, it is in their self interest to disappear from the world into galt's gulch.

Post 34

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 10:49am

�Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today.��Ayn Rand

This is profoundly true, and has contributed more to my personal happiness than I can say.

Post 35

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 4:04pm

Rodney: Thank you for that wonderful, heroic quote � I don't recall reading those10 words but they convey exactly what I was trying to say to Citizen Rat.

Citizen Rat would portray John Galt as a mere Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Sam

Post 36

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 5:18pm

With regard to Mr. Bisno's post, I think Citizen Rat raised an interesting point, and one I myself have thought since I first read "Atlas Shrugged". I love that novel beyond compare, but John Galt was never my favorite character. Dagny Taggart was. I gave some thought as to why she had more appeal to me than he did, and I did so by asking myself some hard questions. If what the strikers did was the right thing to do, why am I (or the majority of Objectivists) not shrugging? Why did Howard Roark not shrug in "The Fountainhead"? Why do I choose to continue living in a mixed economy as opposed to founding a community of our own that is based on Objectivist principles. I am sure someone is going to point out ARI, TOC, or SOLO are communities, but I cannot metaphysically live in ARI, TOC, or SOLO (and spending hours browsing their sites does not count as living). Now that I mentioned it, why are none of those alphabet soup organizations not shrugging? Why do they remain a part of this postmodern society? Perhaps the Free State Project is such a community, but I cannot imagine packing up my bags, leaving all my friends behind, and moving to New Hampshire.

I admire what Howard Roark did because he lived by his principles in a world that did not. He succeeded in a world where it should have been impossible for a man like him to succeed. I admire Dagny Taggart because held to her guns when everyone else around her was giving up. She did it because she loved running her railroads, and damn the rest of the world which did nothing but put obstacles in her path. Funny, that sounds like what I am trying to do now. I am not happy about the fact I have taxes taken out of my paycheck, but that is not stopping me from working for that paycheck. I long for a world where no taxes would be taken from my paycheck, but such a world does not exist, and there is nothing I can do or would want to do in my lifetime to change that. To paraphrase Rand, "wishing does not make it so". I can however, make enough of a pile of money that it would not matter as much how much taxes were taken away, and it is a far better choice I think than living in some mountain in Colorado where I do not have to pay taxes, but at the cost of my standard of living.

If there were a way to making sweeping cultural changes that way postmodernism did, then I would be all for it. I support TOC financially, but knowing that I am betting on some slim odds (I am a gambling man). I am unconvinced those odds are anything but slim. This does not mean I say a glass that is half empty. Far from it. I see a glass half full, and I make the most of that half-full glass without waiting for it to be completely full.

Post 37

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 5:18pm

Citizen Rat:

"You mean like John Galt recruiting Hank Reardon to abandon his business to help Galt ruin the economy?"

You are truly a spin meister. John Galt merely refused to assist the malefactors in avoiding the consequences of their own actions, as you well know.

Sam

Post 38

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 6:11pm

Sam: She wrote those words at the end of her Introduction to the book The Romantic Manifesto. She was speaking in regard to an esthetic renaissance, but it is very clear that that was her attitude to every aspect of her vision.

Post 39

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 6:11pm