Posted on 07/18/2009 7:32:31 AM PDT by Publius
I probably would have turned it off, too, but I’ve noticed when watching old TV shows, movies, and such that the attention span back then was significantly longer than the average person today.
I got a bit humbled when reading Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” as part of Glenn Beck’s Common Sense. This was supposed to be the arguments for revolution for the common man. I found it head and shoulders better writing than most of what I see now and I suspect that literary readers back then had higher expectations of their writers as well.
Having said all that, I do think that most of the people would have turned it off. But maybe Galt was expecting the other producers to listen through because it would speak to them more. And that was the audience that he was hoping to persuade to go on strike anyway.
”...Walk into any college classroom and you will hear your professors teaching your children that man can be certain of nothing...”
I’ll take environmentalism for $1000, Alex. :-)
It blows me away the level of pseudo-science associated with environmentalism. And it goes more to your point (and Reagan’s) than Rand. How can a supposed “scientist” be so darn certain over something that has such a short measurable timeline and such a standard deviation in the data. It would be a huge improvement if somebody in the “movement” would declare that nothing is certain.
I get that environmentalism is all about control, but one would expect, in a rational world, that the science would lead to the conclusion and not the other way around. ( I guess Rand would tell me to examine my premise! ) It’s so bad that “global warming” has morphed into “climate change”. Fortunately, there are rational people who recognize this for what it is. Unfortunately, none of those seem to be in charge right now.
Justice Clarence Thomas talked about Natural Law during his confirmation hearings, and the Democrats tried to say this was a reason that he should not be confirmed. C S Lewis explains Natural Law beautifully in Mere Christianity, among other writings.
Here is the part of John Galt’s speech that made the connection for me:
”So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons – no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future, and slowly, to rise from the cave…”
Natural Law exists whether we acknowledge it or not. You can deny the law of gravity, but you can’t make it stop holding you to the earth. The left can deny the existence of Natural Law, but it doesn’t stop affecting them which is why they will ultimately fail.
Rand was most certainly a student of philosophy, and Atlas Shrugged is her earnest attempt to add to the field. What seems to have developed over the months Publius and I have been doing this is a pattern of conflict between Rand's narrative and her philosophy, somewhat after the pattern of Nietszche and Aristotle as we detailed above, passion versus reason if you like. Rand saw no real antagonism between the two but I think that I do. YMMV.
Three chapters to go before the Book Club is finished with this beast, with one more entry afterward for a summation and final commentary. I hope the ride has been as much fun for you all as for us. ;-)
Somehow, I knew you would ask this question and I've been trying to come up with an answer for weeks.
I must say, first off, that I would have turned the speech off as, IMHO, it would have been WAY over the head of 99.9% of the population that was listening. (NOTE: I read this chapter twice and was absolutely overwhelmed trying to figure out HOW on Gods green earth what he said related to why things were going to he*l in a handbasket). I can understand the need to explain A is A and so on, however, most people would want to know, in laymans terms, why what was happening was happening. Something along the lines of:
"This is John Galt speaking: We, the producers, who provided the economic engines, the jobs, the innovation, the thinking, have gone on strike and are now actively allowing collectivists, those who consider "the common good" over the importance of the individual, to completely have their way. This is our way of proving to you, the listening public, the "collectivist" form of government, from each according to his ability to each according to their need, simply does not work. Where are the jobs offered by those collectivists in charge? Where is the incentive to do your best, where is the incentive to work for you and your family if it's only going to be taken away to be GIVEN to someone else because they need it more than you but aren't willing to lift a finger to earn it.
Many of you listening have actively supported this concept at OUR expense. You supported taking our facilities in the interest of the common good, you advocated confiscation of our profits to be redistributed to people too lazy or uninterested in fending for themselves, for the common good.
The immense profits of which you complained were used to build more plants, to provide more jobs, to increase economic activity, to allow the INDIVIDUAL to excel to his or her greatest level. We provided jobs at a wage (value) and expected a return of equal value (labor) to everyones benefit. That was taken from us. Our value to the nation was reduced to nothing more than a giant pot to be used for distribution to those who had no value to offer, yet who expected more and more as a reward for their inability to offer anything in return. Have we, as INDIVIDUALS, made money? The answer is yes, but we paid ourselves as a reflection of our value the same as any employee. We provided jobs to those that wanted to work, we provided money to those willing to earn it and we provided profits to be used to rebuild train tracks, to rebuild steel furnaces, to rebuild and continue to move forward with as little interruption as possible.
You wanted that taken. We are now on strike, to return when a nation of INDIVIDUALS, willing to work to support THEMSELVES instead of others, who develop the mindset of those who built this country and return to the moral codes that originally took hold when this nation was started." (THEN go into a description of moral codes etc., but at least the public would have understood why they did what they did and would have, hopefully, made the connection)
At last in my case, THAT would have made me stick around for the entire broadcast.
Just my 2 cents..
There was a reason that the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years...Those that remembered the slavery experience with fondness had to go.
Same thing here with Galt.. They can't really come back until every leech that is standing with their hand out wanting the food out of your mouth has to go.
Makes me concerned for our own culture..There are more folks looking for a hand out than there are hands producing to feed them..
Our society will never recover until there are fewer..
How does this address compare to President Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech?
At nearly 30 minutes, it is a lot to digest. I wonder how many people sit through the whole 30 minutes. I would imagine that conservatives and libertarians will, but liberals will stop listening very quickly.
In that context, I would imagine that the producers in AS would be more willing to listen to Galt's speech where the moochers would turn it off very quickly.
Bump for later!
I like your prologue to the speech. It cuts right to the chase.
Reagan’s speech had little immediate impact, but it was the manifesto for a movement. Some 16 years later it bore fruit.
I shall miss coming home on Saturdays to no new insights once Atlas has been fully dissected.
Perhaps you and Bill may consider other collaborations.
We’re gving serious consideration to doing the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers together, interleaved, in strict chronological order, so as to follow the debate over the Constitution. I’m looking at reformatting each paper in Structured English, which uses indentation and line separation to take long sentences apart and make them more readable for the modern reader. Then we would follow each paper with commentary.
The ride has been a lot of fun for me. I’ve been compiling the best of every contributor’s thoughts on every one of these threads and have been attaching it to my copy of Atlas Shrugged. I’ve learned so much American history in the vignettes here. I appreciate enormously that people have taken the trouble to write them. I will be giving the book to my brother for Christmas. He read it from ‘00 to ‘02. I read it in ‘04 and remarked to him that I was going to re-read it and highlight the parts that had special resonance for me. Because of the contributions of various people on these threads, but especially you and Publius, the entire book has more resonance to me now. All that, and I now have 1 Christmas present out of the way.
Inasmuch as this chapter is concerned, you and Publius did an outstanding job. I have no doubt that I would not be up to the task. To tell the truth, after the reading assignment of last week, I could not read this ping in a single shot, but I’ve been addicted all day and look forward to visiting it several times in weeks to come.
Oh, Proust is so gauche anymore! Maybe we should do some Balzac or Zola. Me-oui!
This is a post that needs to be savored slowly and sipped, like a fine whisky.
But there was absolutely nothing else that they could do but listen. Remember how Mouch & Co. commandeered the waves?
Please, please, please tell me that A la recherche du Temps Perdu is not what I fear it is. I’m afraid to say it - Proust’s Rememberances of things past? If so, I, female heterosexual, will be rooting for Nurses in bondage.
*eyes rolling around the block*
That sounds terrific. I have long hungered for that, but have not had the discipline to read them myself.
I don’t know about gauche. If I had to pick an adjective, I’d go with tiresome. Zola is tedious too, in my estimation; I can concede some redemptive value in the case of Balzac.
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.