Sign in to follow this  
galtgulch

Exponential growth in pro freedom movement will succeed perhaps this time!

Recommended Posts

When I first encountered Ayn Rand's philosophy as explained to me by a colleague during an argument over lunch regarding potential job actions doctors in city hospitals might take to get a raise, my reaction was: "How come its not front page headlines in the New York Times?"

The explainer had simply said that:"No man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill his need!" I have not found that statement anywhere in Ayn Rand's writings but it captures the essence of the Objectivist view of Man's relationship to other men. That he or she is free to deal with others if he sees fit and is also free to refuse to enter into any relationship as well.

This does fly in the face of the Judeo-Christian ethic of Altruism which encourages each of us to hold the needs of others above our own. Some would say demands rather than encourages.

Back in the late sixties I calculated that the roughly 20,000 subscribers to The Objectivist Newsletter 1962-1965 would double their number at a rate exceeding once a year. At that rate there should have been 10 million advocates of Objectivism after nine years. That could have happened and should have happened, and still should but the next generation was simultaneously being indoctrinated with other ideologies and theologies so it is no surprise that the doubling and redoubling has yet to happen. After all Objectivism has reason on its side.

Now my wife and I were shopping and I was paying for an item my wife wanted with a few dollar bills. I asked the lady behind the counter if she minded if I paid with Federal Reserve Notes instead of Constitutional money. That led to a conversation about the existence of the Federal Reserve which was not authorized in the Constitution. I suggested that I knew of a movement in the colleges which was growing and held the promise that enough young people would learn what the Founders vision was and would be able to restore our country in the near future.

I mentioned the Students For Liberty and the Young Americans for Liberty and she said that her daughter was in college and was one of the Young Americans in her college!

YAL just began in 2008 and grew from a handful of colleges to several hundred in the intervening years. In a society of over 320 million people what are the chances that I would encounter the mother of one of the young people in this new movement?

I know that both of these groups of student activists are allied with The Atlas Society which makes them aware of Ayn Rand's ideas and books in addition to others in the pro individual freedom network.

I have no doubt that this time the growth will not stop, this time it is taking root in the colleges, the universities and the high schools. It will not die out but will keep growing until it is on each and every campus, not only in America but all over the world and every young intelligent freshman entering schools of higher learning will encounter the existence of the pro freedom movement and Ayn Rand's ideas will be part of their intellectual ammunition.

Things are bound to get worse before they get better, given the failed ideology which still prevails.The failed policies will still be advocated by the politicians and pseudo intellectuals who still are in positions of power and influence. But this time, in time, enough men and women all over the world will be enlightened and motivated to take control and will create free societies all over the world.

Thomas Jefferson said: If you think you can remain ignorant and free you wish for something that never was and never will be.

Or words to that effect. In that quote resides the clue to the restoration of a free society. This movement has the horses to generate exponential growth which is what is necessary to grow fast enough to succeed in the little time we have in which to get society back on the rails.

gg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exponential growths again???? You are an optimist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the number of Objectivists should double every year doesn't make the least bit of sense. Just 20% compounded would do the job anyway.

Objectivism isn't fit to travel. (Neither is libertarianism.) It hasn't enough moral and intellectual gravitas. The philosophy in the 1960s did not champion critical thinking and still doesn't. It wears those clothes but it's not in the body. If it alines itself with contemporary liberals it defaults into libertarianism and is taken over by the left libertarians. But the Marxists don't need or want it so left libertarianism only sits there by the tracks waiting for the train that never stops to stop. The bad guys don't want to share their power with anyone who wants to take away that power. If it alines with conservatives it defaults on the underdeveloped Objectivist ethics and strict call to rationality--no matter how hollow that is--and marches with the neo-cons off to war turbo-charged by love of Israel. There is no Israel in Atlas Shrugged. Rand must have discovered it after the novel was published. Frankly, she ended up almost as conservative as most conservatives, but with her atheist twist.

The Virtue of Selfishness is like a man with one leg aspiring to run. Each human being has two egos of varying ratios depending on both nature and nurture. Rand emphasized the basic and foundational ego and failed to build the social house. I think this is because she was so mad at the collectivists using altruistic justification for their tyrannies, especially in Russia. But that they used such doesn't mean they owned such. That "witch doctor" stuff blew smoke over the conversation so everybody shut up not knowing there actually was something to talk about beyond general animadversion upon the silly Rasputins. It's all about power. Once you tear altruism out of the collectivists' hands--do they even talk about it any more?--then examine what you are holding instead of tossing it aside in your victory dance, for if the bad guys used it once they can pick it up and use it again. Just as altruism must be cleaved from the collectivists, altruism must then be cleaved of collectivism--that is, sacrifice. The irony is Objectivism has sacrificed altruism on the altar of collectivism, Rand's enormous and ignorant contradiction. Isn't there some fallacy of the excluded middle here? That's what I'm talking about. Moral altruism is normal to human being. Immoral altruism is not. It can be "selfish" to be altruistic, but it's never selfish to sacrifice. The proper divide is sacrifice or not sacrifice, not selfishness or selflessness. "Rational self interest" doesn't have the rhetorical punch of "selfishness," but if you want to use morality in warfare as a weapon that'll do it. It's understandable then why Rand once embraced the idea of a just war with the USSR. Hey, lady, that was insanely stupid! That's killing or causing the deaths of hundreds of millions. Morality is a defensive weapon for the good guys and only an offensive weapon for the bad guys. Take it away, however, and they'll keep coming. Right now--that's what's happening! It's out of inertia for people are biologically wired for security over freedom and something for nothing if they can get it to save energy for whatever. Freedom is sloughed off as a country gets older. The kids want it. They don't have anything. The adults want to keep what they have, especially as they reach the point where effort starts paying off less and less for they are up to less and less effort. All DNA wants is more people. DNA hit a home run with humanity. Almost seven billion and still counting. You think DNA gives a rat's ass about freedom?

--Brant

rant to the tenth power, pant, pant, pant . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our friend Gulch is a stranger to the S or Sigma curve. It starts off slow, then speeds up a lot and then it goes flat at the top. Rather like a can containing a carbonate beverage. Or pop cord. Just a few pops to start. Then a staccato of frenzy and then it tails off. Very few pops toward the end.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill his need!"

I have not found that statement anywhere in Ayn Rand's writings but it captures the essence of the Objectivist view of Man's relationship to other men. That he or she is free to deal with others if he sees fit and is also free to refuse to enter into any relationship as well.

This does fly in the face of the Judeo-Christian ethic of Altruism which encourages each of us to hold the needs of others above our own. Some would say demands rather than encourages.

Your idea of altruism is a common misconception. Now, your first paragraph is a way closer to the reality of what altruism truly is.

Jesus said to "Love your neighbor as yourself." He never said, "Love your neighbor more than yourself!" :laugh:

That statement is actually a reality equation.

loving yourself = loving others

It's impossible to love anyone else more or less than you love yourself. If it's more, or less... it's not love. Because love is doing what's morally right. Doing what's morally right is never an obligation... especially if it's laid onto you by someone else. If it is, then it's wrong to do it. When you do what's morally right, it always works out in your own best interests, so it will also automatically be what is in the best interests of others.

I help others when where how and who, I as a sovereign individual see that it's right to do so... just as you described in your first paragraph. It is impossible to do something in my own best interests and have it not be in the best interests of others.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baal,

I appreciate your comments as usual.

<<<"Exponential growths again???? You are an optimist.">>>

My wife thinks I am a pessimist because I worry about the disaster which awaits us as things continue in the wrong direction with virtually inevitable depression, inflation, shortages, civil unrest, roving bands of desperate starving former civilized humans, higher massive unemployment, failure of the currency.

So I am glad that I have reason to be optimistic regarding this pro freedom movement because of the realistic growth to date which is truly exponential. Both YALiverty.org and studentsforliberty.org began in 2008 on a literal handful of colleges and now number in the thousands and are on every continent!

They are both composed of student activists who are all about recruiting other students to join the cause, educate themselves and recruit others. That is their whole raison d'être. And grow they will and they each know it which serves to help motivate them and gives them the confidence to keep plugging and find better ways to recruit on campus. It is even on some high school campuses as well.

There is no doubt that it will double and go on redoubling until it is in the tens of millions and beyond. Just you wait and see. It will happen in our lifetimes, ten or twenty years or so.

I donate money to each organization among others like IHS, FFF, FEE etc. I also tell young people wherever I encounter them.

gg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a particularly good speller. My good spelling is just fastidiousness. I think I got a lot of that from flying small airplanes. (A lot of precision is required. You cannot land on X if you don't control the varying ratios of your altitude and airspeed considering attitude, power, flap setting, wind direction and wind-speed and the flying capability of the machine respecting what is being attempted. This will become painfully aware to a pilot facing a dead stick landing. Even more dangerous is the twin-engine takeoff and one engine quits. I wouldn't be a passenger in one nor was I ever a pilot in one. If I had the money I might go for a Cessna 310, just a beautiful ship, but it makes little economic or safety sense except for night flying, which in turn would be stupid outside some good weather training. I think that fun is worth the risk, especially as it might help in an emergency or returning to an airport a little late. I did some of that. You'll never get bored flying at night. I did get bored flying during the day for lack of a go someplace reason to be up there. Made me think about acrobatics, but I only did a few spins. Nothing boring about spinning an airplane, but have an instructor with you. Spins used to be required for a private license, but too many students--and their instructors--were getting killed.)

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a particularly good speller. My good spelling is just fastidiousness. I think I got a lot of that from flying small airplanes. (A lot of precision is required. You cannot land on X if you don't control the varying ratios of your altitude and airspeed considering attitude, power, flap setting, wind direction and wind-speed and the flying capability of the machine respecting what is being attempted. This will become painfully aware to a pilot facing a dead stick landing. Even more dangerous is the twin-engine takeoff and one engine quits. I wouldn't be a passenger in one nor was I ever a pilot in one. If I had the money I might go for a Cessna 310, just a beautiful ship, but it makes little economic or safety sense except for night flying, which in turn would be stupid outside some good weather training. I think that fun is worth the risk, especially as it might help in an emergency or returning to an airport a little late. I did some of that. You'll never get bored flying at night. I did get bored flying during the day for lack of a go someplace reason to be up there. Made me think about acrobatics, but I only did a few spins. Nothing boring about spinning an airplane, but have an instructor with you. Spins used to be required for a private license, but too many students--and their instructors--were getting killed.)

--Brant

I am a glider driver. Everyone of my landings is or was a "dead stick" landing. If you have a good L:D it is not all that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a particularly good speller. My good spelling is just fastidiousness. I think I got a lot of that from flying small airplanes. (A lot of precision is required. You cannot land on X if you don't control the varying ratios of your altitude and airspeed considering attitude, power, flap setting, wind direction and wind-speed and the flying capability of the machine respecting what is being attempted. This will become painfully aware to a pilot facing a dead stick landing. Even more dangerous is the twin-engine takeoff and one engine quits. I wouldn't be a passenger in one nor was I ever a pilot in one. If I had the money I might go for a Cessna 310, just a beautiful ship, but it makes little economic or safety sense except for night flying, which in turn would be stupid outside some good weather training. I think that fun is worth the risk, especially as it might help in an emergency or returning to an airport a little late. I did some of that. You'll never get bored flying at night. I did get bored flying during the day for lack of a go someplace reason to be up there. Made me think about acrobatics, but I only did a few spins. Nothing boring about spinning an airplane, but have an instructor with you. Spins used to be required for a private license, but too many students--and their instructors--were getting killed.)

--Brant

I am a glider driver. Everyone of my landings is or was a "dead stick" landing. If you have a good L:D it is not all that hard.

There is an additional safety margin in the low-speed landings on wide grass strips. I'd like to try gliders. No engine noise or power management. Just pure quiet. The takeoff tow would be my biggest concern. The Catskills strike me as prime glider territory. There are also motor gliders.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't swim very well. I need Viagra, I think; those commercials tell me so but those guys are too young to have limp dicks so I'm suspicious. In Vietnam $10 got you a whore (I didn't want to die a virgin, Mom!), now you get a God-damned pill and your doctor is your pimp. (I currently use "Man with a Maid" but that's no good with a maid. Anyway it's falling apart. I really do need a Kindle.) I'm not good at beating anybody up. (I have to kill them.) I can't keep up with the troops any more. (I can use drones [but does my country call?--noooooo!].) I gotta write a book. ("Hit Me Over the Head So I Can Learn Something" or "Bonk!" [Dedicated to Greg.])

--Brant

I'd go back on the road with an 18-wheeler just to learn to float those gears, but I can't leave my cats (wimp)

I'm so ugly I had to black out my bathroom mirror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this