Capt. Kirk vs. John Galt: Who Should We Follow?

All American Blogger ^ | 11-24-09 | Duane Lester

[Bodhi1]

In the new Star Trek, Cadet James Tiberius Kirk finds himself standing before the Academy's review board. During his third attempt at a computer simulation no one had ever passed, Kirk installed a subroutine in the simulator's programming which allowed him to win. He was accused of this by Spock, the creator of the simulation.

Here's part of the exchange, starting with Kirk's justification for his actions:

Kirk: [to Spock] The test itself is a cheat, isn't it? I mean you program it to be unwinnable.
Spock: Your argument precludes the possibility of a no-win scenario.
Kirk: I don't believe in no-win scenarios.

(Source)

This shows a change in Kirk's belief system. Prior to this, Captain Christopher Pike told Kirk his dad didn't believe in no-win situations. Kirk replied, "Well, you see how that worked out for him." Kirk's father drove his ship into an enemy ship, but his sacrifice allowed others to live, including Kirk and his mother.

Pike replies, "I guess it depends on how you define "winning."

Captain Kirk then attacked his challenges head on, often risking his own life to achieve victory.

John Galt, the hero in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged," looked at his own no-win scenario and took a different approach. With not only his company, but his country, rushing towards collectivism, he felt the total collapse of the nation was inevitable. So he quit. He went on strike.

And he took the best of the best with him. One by one he talked the heads of industry into disappearing, leaving the looters to search for another mine to strip.

It would be like Kirk leaving the Enterprise and taking Spock, McCoy and Scotty.

Galt felt what he was facing could not be stopped. So he chose to speed it along its path and pick up the pieces after it collapsed.

Kirk fights. Galt walks.

There are days I find myself wondering which is the appropriate role to take in today's America. I look across the Bridge to Dependence and see so many Americans already on the other side, calling for more to join them and wonder if I shouldn't just let them. Go Galt and get out of the way.

And then there are days where I feel more like Captain Kirk, wanting to confront the ideas of collectivism and Marxism and explain to people that that road leads to the destruction of the individual.

Is America too far gone? Are the Captain Kirks of the conservative and libertarian movement wasting their time? Is there still a chance to win this fight for liberty?

Again, it depends on how you define "winning." If you simply mean a return to Republican party domination, winning is possible. In fact, the more the Democrats do, the more probable it becomes.

However, Republicans in majority behave badly. Rep. Sam Graves, my Congressman, usually votes with a conservative mind. But when the opportunity came for him to take a stand for fiscal conservatism, he chose to vote for $200 billion in looting.

I can't see that as winning. Winning has to be a return to the limited government Madison and Jefferson wanted. That goal is far more difficult. It will take decades to educate a majority of Americans about conservative values, if we can get them to care about the state of the nation more than the state of "Dancing with the Stars." It's a very difficult goal, but is it no-win?

Galt or Kirk? Where are we and what should we do? Tell me what you think in the comments.

[massgopguy]

I think I liked him better with the beard.

[screaminsunshine]

You are right. There is no place to run to.

[wolfcreek]

Kirk fights. Galt walks.

We need a combo. One that quits supporting an evil government and is ready for the consequences.

[WayneS]

Is America too far gone?

Yes.

I'm thinking, "walk" until AFTER the collapse, then fight like hell to re-establish the Constitution, with the following small changes:

1) A line item veto for the president will be included.
2) Term limits for both houses of congress will be dictated.
3) NO mention of "the General Welfare" shall appear anywhere in the document. It has proven too confusing for some to understand.
4) The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" will be removed from the Bill of Rights.
5) The death penalty shall be mandated for ANY elected federal official who accepts money from ANY individual or corporation lobbying for ANY legislation; said penalty shall be carried out via hanging by the neck until dead on a gallows constructed on the front steps of the Capitol building for the express purpose of executing corrupt elected federal officials.

[runninglips]

I would love to run to Galts Gulch (the American continent) but this is the last place to run to. Picture Gandolph on the rope bridge....at this place we STAND.

This country does not need the right people in place to run smoothly or improve even more. It needs a govt that lives within the rules. Courts that jealously defend the letter of the law. Lawmakers that work within the rules and guard against the Judiciary and the Executive, and a strong Executive with the fear of being kicked out of office if he steps on the toes of either one.

Of course we need upstanding people within these branches, but mostly we just need rules that are followed. Wouldn't it be nice if govt was out of line, you could handle it locally? States rights, they are important and are the keystone of our Republic. Too bad those idiots in Europe haven't figured out that if they emulated the US in its early years, they could have both a strong Republic, and a strong voice within their homeland.

[D Rider]

I know many believe that things are unfolding as they should, to bring the Anti-christ to power, and thus bring Jesus Christs return. This leads some to fatalism, or to concentrate on salvation and ignore politics.

America's founding fathers were mostly strong Christians, (that can only be argued otherwise, if you ignore their writings and what contemporaries wrote about them.) But Benjamin Franklin leaned towards Deism, a belief that God may have created, but other than that he has kept his hands off. After the great conflict of the revolution and with time for reflection, it was Benjamin Franklin that called for daily prayer citing that God does listen and answer our prayers as they all knew and experianced. In other words, he changed his mind.

It is not ungodly to be in conflict against evil, it is our heratige. Conflict seems to have a way of clarifiing our thinking like nothing else. It is good and right to take the Fascists head on, and now is the time. The outcome is in God's hands, and whatever it is, we can not lose.

[flowerplough]

So the resigning governor Sarah “Shrugged” just like Ayn Rand’s John Galt, then, di’n’t she?

[marron]

Consider someone who actually lived: George Washington. He backed away from many conflicts to save his Army to fight again on another day on his own terms. When the time was right, he hit back - HARD and completely by surprise. You don’t have to choose Kirk or Galt. You can be a Washington.

Thanks.

I think you do both. Build your family. Build your business. Build the culture you want to live in. And when you have to fight, fight.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

And he took the best of the best with him. One by one he talked the heads of industry into disappearing, leaving the looters to search for another mine to strip.

That's the problem with fiction. It's easy to set up your own boogeyman and then knock them down.

In real life, it's the heads of industry that are the looters and they aren't likely to follow someone like Galt.

[hoosier hick]

Just don’t get caught wearing the red shirt...

hh

[FourPeas]

You don’t have to choose Kirk or Galt. You can be a Washington.

Well said.

[Tallguy]

Kirk occaisionally used the tactical retreat. That would put Washington closer to Kirk on the continuum.

[Tallguy]

If you opt to give a President that much power than I propose a wrinkle used by the classical Greeks: on leaving office the autocrat (read: President) is automatically indicted on charges of treason. IOW’s he must defend his actions in office before a legal body. If he is defeated he goes into exile, or faces other criminal penalty.

[Servant of the Cross]

No. I'd say she's "attacking in a different direction".

[dfwgator]

How many hot, green, alien chicks did John Galt get it on with?

"If the b***h is green, there must be something wrong with the p***y" - Eddie Murphy

[Billthedrill]

It's a little hard to tell. Galt was reluctant to kill anyone but his buddy Francisco d'Anconia wasn't at all. So if "follow Galt" means hipshooting marauding union thugs with a revolver in each hand, then sign me up. James T. Kirk never did that.

The question, of course, is a metaphor for the real one, does one fight or try nonviolent civil disobedience first? That assumes there is a choice. Given the proclivity of the Left for bloodshed toward class enemies, we may not have one.

[tnlibertarian]

Wait a minute. Wasn’t he Gumby?

[Shadowstrike]

I agree.

I’m from a long line of those that don’t run (walk).

We advance.

Semper Fi .

[altair]

I disagree with your 1, 2 and 5. They miss the root cause of what has afflicted our nation for the past century or violate the intent of the constitution. My suggestions:

• The first and fourth amendments need to be strengthened to include secure communications.

• We need to add the right to financial privacy, none of this "money laundering" BS, Barry Soetoro.

• The IRS must die. We also need to add language to prevent a private central bank like the "Federal" Reserve from ever being recreated.

• The poll tax needs to be reinstated to determine franchise. Whatever form of taxation is decided upon, only net taxpayers are to be allowed to vote.

• The commerce clause needs considerable narrowing.

• We need automatic sunset laws on all extra-constitutional legislation passed. If it's not popular enough to be reenacted every few years or so, it's probably not a good law and should either be abandoned or rewritten.

• Popular vote elections of Senators needs to be eliminated and returned to the hands of state legislatures. The Senate was designed to impede the speed of legislation and represent states' rights. It doesn't do either at the moment.

• The line of succession must be rethought out. We're in a situation where a usurper, which Obama may or may not be, appoints everyone in the line of succession except for Speaker of the House and President Pro-tem of the Senate. This must be fixed.

And so long as I am being radical in a fiscally conservative way, debt based money and usury should be forbidden constitutionally. My late father who was a CPA once asked me "What reason does money have any inherent value such that it should acquire additional value as time passes (compound interest)?" I never came up with a good response to that.

[altair]

If you opt to give a President that much power than I propose a wrinkle used by the classical Greeks: on leaving office the autocrat (read: President) is automatically indicted on charges of treason.

I think he's off-base a bit, but that's an interesting idea. I don't think you should need something like that in a properly constitutionally limited republic, but an interesting idea nonetheless.