Jump to content
APC Forum

Who is John Galt ?


kpknd

Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...
John Galt would let you buy any chems in any amount. He would be a friend of pyro. Teenagers everywhere would laud him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, the mindless libertarianism of Ayn Rand... She would have been so admirable had she not gone so hypocritically back on everything which she fought for and lived the last years of her life on the state pension and healthcare system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who reads The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged would certainly not characterize Ayn Rand as mindless, nor was she a libertarian--she was strictly speaking a capitalist, believing in free enterprise. And it was certainly consistent that she followed her "enlightened self-interest" by partaking of a dole that was created by taxes extracted from her earlier in her life. I don't admire her for many other reasons, but anyone who has lived under a political regime that discourages free enterprise can appreciate the intellectual and economic freedoms found in your country. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Jonathan, the fictional John Galt was not devoid of a social conscience (one of the claims against Libertarianism), so selling harmful items to immatures might be out the question. You are aware of the philosophy that says that it is not the political system that is inherently good or evil but rather it is the people that drive the particular system. Possibly, some political systems may be more prone to abuse... But why are we discussing politics in a pyro forum, anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hindsight,

 

I agree with your take on Ayn Rand (although I confess I read "Atlas Shrugged" at age 15 and retain only the sense of it and also Dagny Taggart).

 

While I do not promote the notion of selling harmful items to under-age persons, I remember my teen years as years of intense experimentation and learning, especially with rockets and rocket fuels. I do not want government to shut off the avenues to such learning, even though the avenues involve risks. Speaking just for myself, carefully considered risk coupled with learning and freedom trump government's heavy hand every day, at least where the risk is only to oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, John Galt is not devoid of social conscience, he's quite a decent human being he refuses to sell harmful things to minors. But a real libertarian would never object to people who do those because thats their business and their conscience. Rand-style Libertarianism is stupid, mindless and hypocritical, and there are certain areas in industry which need heavy government regulation, like the healthcare system, especially in aged care. Ayn Rand rotted out the last years of her existence on the public purse which she spent her entire life bagging and saying that should be done away with for favour of private enterprise, which she, due to her circumstances would not have been able to afford.

 

All this "free market" and "free enterprise" talk by Libertarians is hollow and rather poorly thought out. In our recent election here in Oz, I had some unbelievably persnickety idiot from the LDP, our mindless Libertarian party tell me of his vision of a country where drugs of allsorts would be legal for all ages. Its actually really easy to debunk some of the more stupid claims that they make, like the stupid idea that universal healthcare is somehow more expensive and less efficient than private healthcare, or that private enterprise operates infrastructure more efficiently and cheaply than government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your combination of enthusiasm, energy and wit with an interest in the performing arts should allow you to indulge in a little theatre where I play the role of grumpy Geezer: Let's see, Googling "Ayn Rand Libertarian"...aha, there it is, the very first entry...

What was Ayn Rand’s view of the libertarian movement?

 

Ayn Rand was opposed to the libertarian movement of her time.

 

Just because someone incorporates a knight's heraldry into their family coat-of-arms does not make the knight a member of their family. And the view that care of the elderly has improved with government interference is based on your expert opinion. But my experts tell me otherwise. Re-read my post and Jonathan's. Interestingly, Ayn Rand, like her antithesis Karl Marx, had an atheistic worldview. As suggested earlier, in the absence of individual morality, any political system will display its evils.

Now it's time for my Geritol and nap. And when I get up perhaps I'll do something really mindless, like fill lead pipes with flash powder and weapons grade plutonium (will that get me banned?) to sell to some hapless youths. Good night, Nurse!

Edited by hindsight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well ill just be an innocent bystander and murmur the words my this political discussion has gotten rather heated
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome leedrill ! Nah, just a good, clean, friendly brawl. Come on in, plenty of pyrotechnics in politics. Didn't make the snowball, nor did I start it rolling down the hill, just gave it a little nudge as it went by. Hope none of the bystanders got hurt in the ensuing avalanche. We can't seem to exercise enough self-restraint to stop this silly chatter-- the sweet siren song of a reply to a political post is irresistible. Perhaps you will stuff our ears and tie us to the mast, or some merciful Admin will perform a kind of posting euthanasia...Posticide. It would be the humane thing to do!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experimenting with chemicals is freedom and knowledge.

 

I applaud John Galt and all other real and fictional characters who subscribe to responsible experimentation.

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that really did get out of hand,,, my bad...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ayn Rand was the proponent of objectivism, not libertarianism. The facts are the facts, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't do anything that is contrary to your self interest just because the majority says it's the right and proper thing to do. Don't be bullied by the masses, be true to your principals. YOU are the best moral arbiter of what is true to your soul. That, and Dagny Taggert was hot too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand was the proponent of objectivism, not libertarianism. The facts are the facts, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't do anything that is contrary to your self interest just because the majority says it's the right and proper thing to do. Don't be bullied by the masses, be true to your principals. YOU are the best moral arbiter of what is true to your soul. That, and Dagny Taggert was hot too...

Your assessment of Rand's ideology is correct and it should be extolled for the belief in an objective reality, independent of the observer. Subjectivism and its concomitant moral relativism implies that "anything goes". However, a philosophy of objectivism that denies the existence of a moral arbiter outside of oneself is incomplete. But short of divine intervention, I cannot prove it.

Edited by hindsight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assessment of Rand's ideology is correct and it should be extolled for the belief in an objective reality, independent of the observer.

 

I agree with your skepticism about moral relativism.

 

In the physical world, however, it is difficult to find objective reality sometimes, because of the inherent fuzziness expressed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Reality becomes probabilities. Or even a matter of linked photons that seem to be two different things separated by a distance but which behave as one thing.

 

FWIW, i believe physios supplants philosophy in all matters of common interest; not the least of which is the relationship of the observer to the observed.

 

And yes, Dagny Taggart was hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A given individual's limited ability to observe a phenomenon doesn't preclude the presence of an absolute reality. When Heisenberg came out with the notion that you could not simultaneously record the position and momentum of a particle, many people assumed that it implied there was inherent randomness in the universe. Einstein responded, "Gott würfelt nicht!", which meant that God doesn't play dice with the universe. Uncle Albert may have been a lousy dresser, but was a pretty sharp guy.

Edited by hindsight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hindsight,

 

The Uncertainty Principle is sometimes taught to neophytes as a limit on human observation at small scales. Observation of an electron (meaning you bounce a photon off of it) necessarily disturbs the electron.

 

But Heisenberg believed and physicists today believe there is inherent uncertainty in universe at the atomic level.

 

Consider, just for example, the concept of "quantum foam," proposed by John Wheeler in the 1950s. In a vacuum, because of Heisenberg uncertainty, virtual particle and anti-particle pairs spring into existence and then self annihilate. Giving rise to "vacuum energy."

 

On a macro level, I'll grant some absolutes. It's bad to steal, to intentionally harm others, etc. On the atomic level, I'm less certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never personally witnessed life on a subatomic level. And if you wait a few years the truth in particle physics will change yet once again. In my field most "truths" only last a few decades at most, but the profession is aged in millennia.

Without getting into a Kantian discussion, I will say there is a limit to what we can know; we have limited experience, memory and processing power. That doesn't mean there is any less of an objective reality, at any level, which can be comprehended by an infinite (omniscient) intellect.

Edited by hindsight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean there is any less of an objective reality, at any level, which can be comprehended by an infinite (omniscient) intellect.

 

Hindsight,

 

By positing God, anything is possible. I'm rooted in human experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human experience, you say...

If you find a wonderfully crafted gold watch on the beach, do you say, "My what a remarkable series of random events created this timepiece!" ?

Rather,wouldn't you "posit" that an intelligent being had created the jeweled item?

Look around at the world, and there is no excuse for denying the creator. And a sense of eternity has been programmed into our DNA.

Jonathan, you are correct-- with God all things are possible.

 

Now, my friend, we have violated both rules: No Politics & No Religion.

Edited by hindsight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...