Posted on 11/13/2009 7:51:55 AM PST by cornelis
Galtism: I will never live for the sake of another
Sounds like Johnny isn’t much of a family man. (Trailer trash?)
Dear Peter,
Articles such as this is the reason that I no longer subscribe to NR.
But this does not answer the question: “Who is John Galt”?
Article probably written by someone that couldn’t finish reading Atlas Shrugged.
I’m doing my best to starve the beast. If that’s reprehensible, so be it.
Like anything, there must be moderation.
A healthy dose of Rand’s libertarian, just-leave-us-alone, attitude would do a lot to heal the rot that is the federal government.
Its always so disappointing to meet a conservative who seems to have the right ideas on government, but then you realize he considers himself a “Rand-ian”.
Its like meeting someone who calls himself a Christian, but then you realize he belongs to some perverted sect.
Reading Atlas shrugged changed my political outlook many years ago.
Wow. So Rand is wrong because..... Chambers and Buckley didn’t like her book?
I totally get that most of us were raised in the Christian tradition and cannot seem to get over the hump to agree with her.
But anyone care to refute here excerpt re Christianity contained right there? And I mean factually, rationally refute. Without the use of “feelings” or “faith”.
There are a lot of good things in Atlas Shrugged right up to the John Galt speech towards the end. I put the book down for a year at that point. I actually skimmed past it to finish the book. Several years later I went back and read the speech. Pretty corny.
I think Ayn had it almost right when Galt said “I will never live for the sake of another”.
It would have been much more “Christian” to say “I will never live for the sake of another against my free will.”
Still going Galt.
Why is “faith” put in quotes in your comment? Just wondering.
Probably because they look at her philosophy of Objectivism completely backwards. It is often incorrectly viewed as a top-down philosophy of politics affecting the individual. Instead, the best view is Objectivism is a philosophy of the individual, not a political movement. If individuals adhered to a more objectivist philosophy personally, then it would impact forms of government from the bottom up because there would be no demand for big brother pandering.
Understanding it from that direction completely changes some of the issues people have with Objectivism. Also, I should note that Objectivism isn't a religious philosophy that is supposed to be a 'perfect', instead it is more of a roadmap philosophy.
Here’s the problem with Galtism. He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery. Why would that be slavery? Because he has conflated the good with the human person. That is not Christianity.
Plato taught me to look at it this way: is all individualism good?
The answer is, no. Now the job is to recognize what in individualism is anti-social and vicious, and what in individualism is good.
Right on, brother.
The Christian view is that true slavery is slavery to one’s own merely human wants and desires.
He can't do good UNDER COMPULSION for another. That's the key. He can CHOOSE to WILLINGLY do whatever he wishes. But doing so at the point of a gun IS slavery.
+1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.