Posted on 02/14/2009 11:27:03 AM PST by Publius
Re: kids and trophies. My kids have a bunch of those stupid trophies from participating in sports. They are on a table in the basement family room......the room where the children are allowed to play dodgeball. Those trophies have been broken to bits, and the kids don’t care. They know that they did nothing to earn them, so the trophies have no value.
We are emphasizing that self-esteem has to be earned through hard work. It is ok if they work really hard at something and fail. We still praise the effort. That is life. Sometimes you work really hard at work, and you don’t get the promotion, you still need to take pride in the fact that you did your best. But I can be pretty cutting when I know they did a half-a$$ed job to begin with. No points for showing up. I’m wondering if my children are going to need therapy when they grow up......
Well, they’ll be in therapy, but at least they’ll be self-sufficient!
If they have indeed, killed the Golden Goose, it will spell the end of LIEberalism as a governing philosophy.
We’d all suffer for a while sorting the mess out, but them driving a stake through their own heart would not be a bad thing.
My mother and father were lifelong Democrats — don’t believe either of them ever voted non-Democrat. They came of age during the Depression, and were convinced that FDR save the country.
One of my brothers is a LIEberal — he went to MIT and got corrupted; he is unrescuable. My other brother and I are Very Conservative.
Both of my children are conservative, but it doesn’t do much good; they live in Kali-Fornia. I have 5 nieces and nephews; three are conservative and two are LIEberal.
My Southren cousins are Conservative and my Yankee cousins are LIEberal. Must be the water.
I hope to be able to tell my LIEberal family members “see, I told you not to vote for that sonofabitch!” one day.
FRankly, I’d prefer not to know!
I get an entirely different reaction to this scene. I believe they are equals and Francisco's reaction to her statement was guttural. Dagny's reaction was one of pride. Pride that he felt she was better than that and felt so passionately about that, he reacted with force. He literally slapped her out of her slip into passivity.
“One of my principal criticisms of Atlas Shrugged in general is that the act of Atlas shrugging holds an inherent callousness to the welfare of those less-than-godlike inhabitants . . .
There will be more of this later, quite a bit of it, where Rand attempts to address the question “are there, then, no innocent victims?” It is to me one of the central moral questions in AS, pertinent to current events as well.”
Excellent comments.
See, I don’t think the issue is “innocent victims”. Those that would be victims of “shrugging” are already victims of the current system. It goes to the fundamental “moral argument” of the left - that the LEFT has the best interests of everybody at heart when, in fact, the free market provides the best opportunity to the most people.
More to the point, however “innocent” some victims might be, it is not “shrugging” that made them victims in the first place. The left created these “human shields” and ultimately, are morally responsible for the outcome.
It should matter little how intellectual and/or “superhuman” you are in a system of liberty. Hard work is an equal measure of a free man. It only matters when people aren’t free. There is the genesis of “victim-hood”.
I tend that it is less callous to the average “victim” to let the gov’t that institutes such victim-hood fall. That’s the point.
Or, I guess you could say, who’s zooming whom?
~faith.
I read AS for the first time last year. It was wonderful and tedious, at the same time. Slightly masochistic, even. Rand would be proud.
“Wealth has to be re-earned generation after generation. “Luck” only gets you so far.”
Thomas Stanley, in his book, “The Millionaire Next Door” posits that wealth rarely transfers past the 3rd generation. This is why 80% of millionaires are consistently 1st generation.
The first generation that earned wealth had a healthy respect of what it took to earn that wealth. The 2nd generation does not, but at least were parented with the values of those that did. The 3rd generation are twice removed from the respect of what it takes to earn wealth, and so, IF their parents leave them anything, it evaporates.
Hard work is necessary to create or maintain wealth. I was just agreeing with your point - and the point in the book.
More to the point: there is a consistent fabrication of the left - that wealth is static, that there is a “wealthy class”. There is not. Wealth is dynamic. People become wealthy - all the time. People become un-wealthy - all the time. That dynamic quality of wealth - as a function of hard work and effort - is what makes America great. So, OF COURSE, the left would adamantly deny it.
>>Pride that he felt she was better than that and felt so passionately about that, he reacted with force. He literally slapped her out of her slip into passivity.
I took it this way too.
(BTW, how do you do italics in HTML?)
Same as you would to start a new paragraph, but replace the P with an I. To turn off, use / before the I.
This year, my oldest son’s CYO Varsity basketball team has been undefeated and they have won all four of the tournaments they have played. The trophies from these wins (and my other son’s Pinewood Derby Car win) hold a place of honor, while dozens of “participation” trophies have been chucked in a box in a closet. The kids do know the difference, which is encouraging. I don’t understand why the coaches still waste money on the “participation” trophies. Throw the kids a pizza party for their effort instead - it will mean more to them!
One of the things I have been pondering as I read this book and watch events unfold in real life, is the direction to encourage them in considering future careers. I want them to be “producers” - but I don’t want their production to be exploited by the “looters”. My 10 year old is interested in both alternative fuel and in water purification - both very productive, but very exploitable. What would John Galt say?
And, in all fairness, Rand was writing at a time when it was common/acceptable for...
If you watch the Rand/Wallace video posted at the beginning of this thread, the contrast of the era is quite evident. In my opinion Wallace is a product of the popular culture of the time w/cigarette constantly in hand and stereotype questions. Rand, on the other hand seems to be ,well, timeless. I mean that this interview if it was held today would be conducted differently by the interviewer but Rands answers would not have changed.
(Thanks for the posted video links ISee)
I can't tell you what he'd say. It would be a spoiler and against our rules.
Very true. I’ll ask again in a few months!
This is my first time to read the book, so I am taking my time to read it and love these weekly chats. How many times have you read the book?
I have had the book forever and never read it until now. Thanks to all for not spoiling it for those of us that have not read it yet!
Then I wonder why Rush picked it!
Well, mark that one off my list. (My list is pretty empty now. Looks like only the former Soviet satellites are practicing capitalism to any extent. Know anything about Japan?)
I think my main issue with AS is that it assumes that socialism would be so far entrenched that the only way to “beat it” is by letting its consequences take root.
It concedes to the failure of Conservatism to win in the arena of ideas. I understand that the left is handing out money like candy and that money can trump ideology.
Still. I’m not quite ready to subscribe to the idea that the message of Conservatism is a lost cause. I intend to continue to spar in the arena of ideas. If that is too D. Taggert or H. Reardon of me, so be it.
I understand the point: socialism can only survive off the back of capitalism, looters and moochers off of producers. What if the producers shrug? Fair enough.
What if, instead, the producers sell a better idea to so-called ‘middle people’? I still believe this to be a center-right nation. President Obama’s chief economic message was one of tax cuts, combined with a claim of a more responsible government. See my tag line.
Both Clinton and Obama won by sounding more Conservative than their opposition. McCain learned what we all knew: you can’t out-liberal a liberal. But. The reverse is also true. You can’t out-Conservative a true Conservative. Neither Clinton nor Obama could have out-flanked a true Conservative. When true Conservatives come to the table, the message still sells.
Before I shrug, I darn sure want to make darn sure that I sold the message of true compassion - and THAT is Conservatism. In the true sense of the words, “compassionate Conservatism” is an oxymoron. If you have to point out that YOUR brand of Conservatism is “compassionate”, you’ve already lost the battle.
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.