(If you have some interest in a movement to “Go ‘John Galt’”, but are looking for a little more organization before making yourself known, I totally understand. My intent is to turn goingjohngalt.org into a site for that purpose, but I’m still in brainstorming mode at the moment.)
- I often find myself back at “A Man For All Seasons” for inspiration. Thomas More is willing to allow William Roper to visit his daughter, and is treated as a friend. However, while he remains a heretic, More will not permit him to marry into the family. This seems sensible. It’s a willingness to engage with a man of goodwill, but to forbid the intimacy of familial closeness while he continues to embody a crucial error. A stance both benevolent and principled.
- Something James Lileks wrote in the days following Katrina has stuck in my craw all this time. He references a list of the charitable organizations arranging aid to the victims, and calls attention to the religious affiliation of the charities: “Note anything about what sort of organizations are doing the hard work? I keep looking for the Objectivist Mutual Aid Society, but it never pops up.” It bothers me not just because I think the charge is unfair — objectivists are few in number and not geographically concentrated; charity work does not represent a core competency of a group so constituted. What really disturbs me is my fear that a large number of otherwise reasonable people might think that unless a non-freedom-impinging political/philosophical system will faithfully reproduce all of the societal institutions they’ve come to expect, it’s not worth considering. I mean, does there need to actually be an Objectivist Mutual Aid Society up and running for people to think that objectivists aren’t objectivist for the express purpose of killing widows and orphans? While I call that attitude a failure of imagination, that might be in fact what I’m up against.
- Just what the hell do people think when they’re buying Treasury Bonds? Where do they think that the money to pay them back will come from? What sort of person would buy a financial instrument which commits the issuer to extract the value by force from some innocent third party at some future point? The folks protesting “blood diamonds” (and with good reason — I’m not trying to diminish the legitimacy of that crusade) should look into this…
I got a Treasury Bond (or Note perhaps) as a gift for my wedding and sold it immediately instead of waiting for it to mature. I didn’t like the idea behind Treasury Bonds then, but your post is the first time I’ve seen someone else with the same sentiment.
Nice blog.
I’ve learned the hard way that non-objectivists have a completely different basis of thought and judgement. I was told that because I judged social programs to be immoral, that I believed my coworker’s brother of ill health and low income should die. Further efforts to frame the health and happiness type advantages of living in a free society fell upon deaf and pissed off ears. Of course then I declared how I didn’t believe my property should be taken by force no matter what someone’s circumstances, I was blamed along with every greedy CEO that day for his brother’s plight. Although my self-value does not depend on his opinion, I wonder how I may have more persuasively handled the confrontation. Maybe by kicking a puppy, stealing a baby’s candy, and clubbing a baby seal. Apparently that would be an objectivist’s ideal pastime. (Sorry for the sarcasm John.)