Tuesday, April 6, 2010

WHO IS JOHN GALT?


One of my favorite books is Atlas Shrugged. I don't subscribe to all of the philosophy offered by the author, Ayn Rand, but I accept some of it as economic truth. While it has become sexy and acceptable to be Obobin Hood and his merry men, much of America remembers that John Galt is our philosophical druid during this war on terroristic thought. John Galt reminds us that it is not immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself. While we all clamor to work for the doers of society, is it the governments role to take more than half of what capable business people produce? And is it palpable for the dredges of society to demand others pay for their short-comings and call it social justice? This is the crime. This is the moral question. This is the disconnect among the left and the right in America. While the left cries selfishness, inequality and greed about those who have created wealth and wish to retain it, what is it they have become or worse what are they that they create nothing and demand everything? They are in fact leeches and institution suckers. They are non-contributors. They are the do nothings of society. They are the bottom dwellers who can't do and bemoan those who can. They are the covetous, ravenous and jealous whores who want what is not theirs and will steal it by redefining the governments role in our lives. They have redefined American thought and ideals so that they can continue to sit on their asses and rob America blind. They have ignored the Constitution and deemed America the land of opportunity to sieze what you want.
John Galt tells us that when a society begins to demand apologies for greatness, it is then that the our freedom to pursue our own happiness dies in the waters of collectivism rather than individualism. America is based on individual liberty and not collective equality. This is not to say that as a whole we shouldn't enjoy certain freedoms, but it is the individual that is the pursuant of life, liberty and happiness. When liberties are based on collectivism rather than individualism, it becomes fascist in nature and this is not constitution centered nor is it what our founding fathers intended. Our rights are individual in nature because when they are based on collectivism, any one group would have power over the individual and their definitions become impositions. The free market then thrives no more because businesses are run by those who can NOT vs. those who can. Collective philosophy rules and not individual ability. Under this philosophy Bill Gates no longer has control over his company. The collective group or the government calls the shots and because they are incapable thumb suckers, Windows is no more. It dies. Harry Reid is only an impostor, he is not a business man. Obama is not a business man and when he takes over businesses and banks like he has, he will fail or he would have already made his millions in the private business sector. So we have a do nothing idiot President about to take over what others have built in the insurance industry and his collectivism will crush the individual worker. The formula is as clear as the sun. Those who can do, and those who can't become President and take over what others have built. Obama hasn't created anything, he is only taking from those who do create and because he is clueless, America is in trouble. America must remain individualistic plain and simple. We have strayed into collective incapable territory and the non-doers have taken over. Don't believe me? Read the book. We are living Atlas Shrugged.
Who is John Galt? He is Freedom. He is capitalism. Better yet, where is John Galt?

24 comments:

commoncents said...

THANK YOU for posting this. I LOVE your blog!

Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange??

Rick Frea said...

How fitting that you write about this today, because I have been pondering getting this book from the library. It was recommended the other day from a friend. After reading your book review here, I am definitely going to read it. The only reason I haven't read it already is because of length, but it looks as though it will be worth it.

You'd think that most people would agree with you here, yet I think the big problem with this country is that too many people don't care. I asked my neighbor the other day what he though of healthcare, and he said, "I don't like to keep up on things that won't effect me?" And there lies the problem, and the reason progressives have been able to trample on the Constitution

tammy said...

Exactly! I heard someone say it good yesterday when asked about charity and what God would want. He said that God expects us to have charity and to give to others, but he does not expect us to reach our hands into others' pockets to do that giving. I get so tired of liberals saying that it's un-Christian for us to not want to give. I give plenty, but I give in my own way, to people I choose that deserve it.

Case in point - I have two friends, both husbands are out of jobs. One friend has been living frugally, doing everything they can to save, make do, and make it on their own. I sometimes stick money or gift cards in her purse or in the mail to help her out, or give hand-me down clothes to her kids. The other friend spends what little money they have on a trip to Disneyland, or going out to lunch, and waits for others to step in. They also look for ways to cheat the system. I don't feel like I need to help them so much.

Sounds like a good book.

Janelle said...

Given the number of women who are involved in the tea party movement.....Jane Galt is showing up and John will follow.

shirley elizabeth said...

You said the words I've been trying to piece together for a few weeks. Wonderful.

I linked this in reply to this post that annoyed me:
http://bobaagard.blogspot.com/2010/04/conservatives-op-ed-for-health-care.html

namaste said...

excellent post nik. you've said all there is to say regarding individualism and collectivism and what each can produce in a society.

i'm amazed at how fuzzy this is for some others. but as rick points out, many people don't care. obama and his rascals count on apathy and idiocy of voters. lucky us.

susana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
susana said...

I actually liked Atlas Shrugged. I read it over the holidays...not this year but the year before. Actually, I re-read the very very long book...The first time I read it was way back in college, but this time around I found it relevant, being all the background chatter.

AynRand starts out with the premise that all capitalists are good, honest, inherently moral creatures who naturally deal fairly with competition, workers and fellow mankind.
No one can argue that history tells us otherwise! The country is currently suffering because of the dishonest, devious and underhanded business practices Rand’s beloved business tycoons are capable of.
Evidenced by Pres Bush admin (led by Cheney) deregulation policies which directly resulted with Enron bankrupsty, bank bailouts, housing market crash, illegal immigrant explosion.. etc etc etc… and voila! the present day recession.

Rand was naive! The idea that capitalists or industrialists, could be greedy, deceitful, underhanded or create lobbyist firms and buy elections and politician favors never seems to enter her head. But it was a worthy read.

Nikki said...

susana, you actually left a decent comment with decent points and then you erase it? Makes no sense, but I will say that you make a great point and this is why I said I don't agree with everything in the book. However you stated Bush was deregulation years? Um I didn't realize Barney Frank and Chris Dodd of Congress had given up their posts. Our financial institution has always been highly regulated or it would be a moot cause for the President to ever run on economic issues.

Nikki said...

ah back up....thanks.

Nikki said...

And let's not forget that the government is not America's conscience. Neither party. Period. You can only say that regulation is the morality of the financial system if those who regulate are moral people. So while I understand we the people have to be protected from dishonest corporation, who protects the people from the dishonest government? And how do you reconcile my thinking democrats are immoral liars and you thinking republicans are immoral liars?

susana said...

There are many reasons I think the way I do about republicans. To me they are immoral liars and my thoughts have been shaped by 8 years of Bush policy.. There is many reasons Pres Obama won a landslide election. One of them being Pres. Obama is exactly everything Pres Bush is not...and that is what the nation wanted, being fed up with far right policies including de-regulation of financial institutions, preemptive war policy, misinterpretation of torture policies wiretapping, spending, spending, tax breaks for wealthy, fake news conferences and on and on and on. I know it takes 2 to tango and yes in many cases the dems danced right along side, that's called compromise and the republicans are incapable of that type of higher order thinking...and maybe that's exactly why you affiliate yourself with them.. But in the end, Nikki, I can reconcile my thinking, You on the otherhand (and so many like you) started hating on Jan 20 2008 (even before) and that's being a pissy poor loser. I will give him a fair chance to govern. It certainly is not any worse than before. I will vote for him again if this remains the case.

Nikki said...

susana, My favorite argument is the one of I am right and you are wrong. One of the goodies. I didn't ask the reasons you "feel" the way you do about republicans. I asked you to reconcile the impasse that occurs with the philosophy that the government protects its people from unscrupulous corporations and the problem of differing perspectives among citizens. I don't care why you hate repugs and Bush. How do you feel about repugs as your moral police when it comes to banks and corporations? No very good I presume. Guess what? That is how I feel about democrats. And your only argument is that I am an anal-retentive Mormon that needs to get laid so I can think more like you. I love that argument too. Do you see the problem with your logic?
You do understand that my angst with dems is not against you personally? Or do you? Your anger towards me is misguided and funnelled through the world of Sue. I have deleted nothing on my blog with regards to her. Look around and see the Mormon torture she has endured, there is none. It's in her head. She is a fabricating and delusional liar. Stop reading her angry shit and discuss issues with some class.
Stop diverting the topic to pathetic blame throwing diatribe. Your Bush hatred is deranged. Your Nikki hatred is deranged. If by your logic you hate Bush because of what you were informed of in the media for 8 years, then what is it I should be taking from the negativity in the media about Obama today? Nothing? Everything? And don't cry FOXNEWS foul with me. The fact that you take my blog personally is not my fault.

susana said...

I really liked you post today Nikki. I thought you made some real good points and I completely understand why the right has adopted "atlas shrugs" I thought I would comment. Now, let me see if I got this straight, because of my comment, you are asking me to...
"... to reconcile the impasse that occurs with the philosophy that the government protects its people from unscrupulous corporations and the problem of differing perspectives among citizens." (close quote)

Let me parse those words and see if I can figure out the question.. As for the rest of your issues,...wow, I don't where to start.

Let me just say, I don't hate you or the mormons, or the jack mormons, or the non mormons...however, I do take issue with antimormons and it's true, I probably egged sue on a titch, the least I could have done was post anonymously ...and I am sorry if you were insulted by my comments.
In all sincerity, I am intrigued by your blog. I am amazed at your writing expression and I imagine it takes you a long time to perfect and post what you do. I would call it an art form of sorts. This doesn't mean I agree with one single thing you say, feel or believe.

One more thing, I am sorry I said you needed to get laid. I take it back...you don't, you shouldn't and I hope you aren't!...no snarkiness intended, I mean it =D

Furthermore, Nikki,If its what you want, I will stop stopping by like you asked me to.

Nikki said...

susana, I appreciate your comments, compliments and your taking the time to read my blog. I really do. Please read and comment as often as you like, but know that the snark I use in my posts o will never be directed towards anyone who is courageous enough to comment. Unless they decide to throw some insults at me. Once I post and what I think is off my chest, I move on and can discuss. That has always been my deal. Please know that the snark I use is not directed at any one person, it is at a philosophy and towards some leaders who adopt a particular ideology. I don't expect agreement. I don't agree with many conservatives right now and have written about it on several occasions to the point of being removed by many blogs. My writing has to remain my own. I can't be afraid of offending or the honesty is lost. Please do not take what I say in my posts personally. I can not stress that enough.
As for your apology, I accept it and will never bring it up again. Mutual respect is all I ask.
As for my posts taking hours, you would probably laugh to know the longest I have ever taken is 3 hours. Most posts are written in less than one hour, including this John Galt post.
Thank you for your comment and lets get passed this foolishness so we can discuss politics for real. You have my word. I will never insult an honest comment from you. And feel free to be snarky as hell. There is a difference in assigning insult and throwing out generalities. Your comment today was excellent and I thought why can't I get that susana more often? :)N

tammy said...

good quote: "...is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed?. ... What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; it's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. ...the only cases in which the masses have escaped from ... grinding poverty ... are the cases where they have had capitalism and free trade. ...If you want to know where they're worst off it's the kind of societies that depart from that." -- Milton Friedman

Nikki said...

And the anti-Mormon stuff...off the hook ridiculous. I know you know better than what those trolls were saying on Sue's blog. Sue being the biggest troll.

Nikki said...

tammy, awesome quote! :)N

Rick Frea said...

Actually, the problems that presently occur in America are not the fault of Capitalism, but progressivism. And this is a philosophy that has engulfed both parties (i.e. McCain/bush, Obama/Clinton). History has proven some regulations, spending and taxes are needed, but over-regulation, over-spending and over-taxation results in a smug economy and declining social conditions.

common sense duh said...

Excellent post and comments.

Susana, you shouldn't lower yourself to comment on Sue's blog. While I don't always agree with your opinion, I respect what you say. Sue is so filled with hate, it's sad.

shirley elizabeth said...

I'm sorry, susana, but I find it amazingly silly that you are putting the "dishonest, devious and underhanded" title on every capitalist. Do you understand who you're accusing? Your neighbors, your fellow congregation members (if you do that sort of thing), your community. It sounds more like you're basing your statement off of what you learned in the movies and not history.

Sure, there are despicable people (everywhere, in any party), and yes, some of them end up in business, and naturally, some of them get to a position where they can screw everyone else over, but that is in no way the majority.

The media and government strives to prejudice people against business, and I refuse to believe it. I have worked with and for some very good people, and maybe that's tainted my view, but I don't think so. I think that's what dominates.

susana said...

shirley elizabeth, you misunderstand. I was making a counter point to what the author Ayn Rand book made in her book"atlas shrugged". Of course it would be silly for me to generalize in such a broad statement. (much less post that generalization on a blog!) You are correct, shirley, there are despicable people everywhere and in every party...and may I add in every walk of life.
I can see where you may of misunderstood my words if you had not been following the comment thread.

Sandi said...

I've read Atlas Shrugged at least 4 times - it's one of my all time favorite books. I also don't agree with all of the philosophy in it, but I was in love with Francisco and John Galt from my teen years when I first read it.

susana said...

loved francisco. yes! But, John Gault didn't reveal himself soon enough for my admiration.