hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
Yes, it's a book about fictional characters. And the author gets to set what happens.
It's easy to "win" an argument if you get to write both sides, which is exactly what Rand did.
And it won't matter squat if the primary problem is not fixed.
The primary problem isn't the system, or the "corrupt politicians" or even the 1/3 to 1/2 that you say support "communist ideology." It's the people who do at least nominally, support the idea of a free society who abandon the system and leave it to those others.
Term limits, like most other panaceas, is a chimera that won't do what folk think it will. But that's beside the point. What makes you think you're done once you get someone elected to Congress.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That means that once you get that guy elected you ride herd on him. You have his replacement ready if he "goes astray" and you make sure he knows that just like you put him in office, you can replace him with someone else.
The problem of reform movements getting their candidate in office is covered in "Take back your government." It's not a new phenomenon. And anything you "replace" the current system with will have the exact same problem. The only fix is not a panacea but constant, ongoing citizen involvement.
I don't buy that analogy. The Constitution is still there. Let's say you write a new one. What makes you think that people will pay any more attention to that one than they do to the current one. You'll still need constant vigilance and effort to make sure the new one is followed. And if you're going to need that constant effort any way, then why not apply that constant effort to the current Constitution and save yourself the extra effort of trying to reinvent the wheel?
You may accept the label "terrorist." I don't. And what makes you think that Pelosi (or whoever) would pay any more attention to any new Constitution you might come up with?
Well the 1/3 to 1/2 numbers were pretty constant from before the revolution up through the final victory. There's a reason that Samuel Adams said, "It does not take a majority to prevail, just a tireless, irate minority eager to set brushfires of Freedom in the minds of man." It was because he never had a majority.
But when you cede the field to the looters and moochers, you have only yourself to blame that that's all you find.
"I'd say." And the basis for that other than that it fits your conception of the world?
Then it's fortunate that you don't need "most Americans" you just need a half dozen or so to start an organization. Then you need a couple hundred to do the actual work.
Greater Indianapolis has a population of about 800,000, 400,000 adults. You only need 1 in 20 of those adults to cinch the primary election and get a candidate on the Republican party. 1 in 20. You don't need a "great majority. Just 1 in 20. And, once you've done that, if you can't put on a better show than Campo did you'll only have your self to blame.
Again, you don't need an "overwhelming majority." In fact, that most people can't and won't be bothered by politics is what makes it possible for folk like you and me to have such a strong effect. The left is saddled with the same problem. Just getting your own vote energized is often (usually) enough to win elections. If the numbers of people who didn't vote leaned one way or the other in approximately the same numbers as those who voted, there were enough people out there who if they had voted would have voted for Campo over Carson to have reversed that election.
People talk about the vote fraud wrt ACORN, but of far more import was the "legitimate" tactic of getting people that support them registered and get them to the polls. One of the things Heinlein suggested is offering to drive people to the polls to vote, anything to get more of your supporters into the polls.
Elections are won by votes and votes are in the precincts. The Democrats lately have paid more attention to that simple fact than have the Republicans with the results we have seen.
And here's the biggest problem with too many people who work on politics today: they concentrate entirely too much on the "big" elections and not enough on the small ones.
Basically, then, yes, you just leave the field to the moochers and looters and then blame the victims for them being the only influence around.
Cheryll Brooks didn't die because she was a looter or moocher or had the "A is not-A" attitude of the looters and moochers. She died because all hope had been systematically extinguished--and John Galt was a major snuffer of that hope.
"It's not my responsibility" is one characteristic that Galt shares with the Looters and Moochers. Rand conveniently elides over that in the book.
You can wash your hands of everything around you if you wish, and that's your choice. And I can sit here and point out that people doing that are a direct cause of the current situation.
How do you think we got where we are except by people not taking responsibility for making things better? "It's not my fault." "There's nothing I could do." "It was beyond my control." "I can't help it." Even in Atlas Shrugged, which side was the one making that claim the most?
Dagny took a different view from Galt. In the end, Dagny failed. But a large part of the reason for that (aside from authorial fiat) is that Galt was systematically knocking the props out from under her.
If someone is standing at the edge of a cliff and you knock the ground out from under them, you cannot then turn around and say that falling was their own fault.
Our Constitution was ratified September 17th, 1788. Name for me any 20 year period where we have had a net gain of freedom. We have done nothing but move to socialism and communism. At no period have we ever been more free than on September 17th, 1788.
We've been trying your method for 221 years and have been losing the battle ever since. Someone said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. My method has only been tried twice in this country and we have had a 50% success rate. Your method of elections has been tried 110 times counting congressional elections and how many of those have we been successful at? The Republican revolution of 94 lasted a whole what, 4-6 years? Did government ever get smaller as a whole during that time?
Again, I'm a firm believer in property rights. What I go to work and earn every day is mine. Not yours, not my neighbors, and not the welfare queen down the road. To say that I have a responsibility for anyone other than myself, wife and daughter is to legalize theft of my property. Our constitution laid out the few powers that the federal government has to collect taxes from me. Everything else is unconstitutional.
I figure our constitution made it about 70 years before we put it on a ventilator. Our founders new that our republic would never last if the government was left unchecked. Please name 1 instance where voting has returned our rights. Getting out the vote isn't the answer either. We have too many people voting now who shouldn't be. Our founders wanted voters to be educated on what they were voting for. Now, we have homeless guys voting to get a free carton of cigarettes. If you have to go pick someone up and take them to the poles, then they have no business voting. If they can't get off of their dead arse and drive or walk to the poles than they shouldn't be voting.
As far as giving the country over to the looters and moochers. If you haven't noticed, they already control this country. To continue to break your back for these people so they can continue to demand more and more and let you keep less and less is to commit suicide. Half of Americans will pay no federal income taxes this year. That number grows every year and will only get worse. How much of your income are you willing to let the looters have before you decide enough is enough? In 2005 or 6, I worked over 500 hours of overtime. I haven't worked any in over 14 months and plan to never do it again. I don't have to have the extra income so I'm not going to work just to give it to the state.
For 2008, my adjusted gross income was $86,017 due to cashing out some annuities. I had already had $4,968 with held and had to write out a check for $2,886 on top of that for a total of $7,854. That is married with 1 child. Wrap your mind around that number if you never had to pay that much in taxes. 2 welfare queens got my total taxes back in their earned income credit handouts.
For 2006, my adjusted gross income was $43,599 and after my refund, I only paid a total of $1,551 in total federal income tax. So for twice the income, I had to pay 5 times the taxes. Those evil rich people making $250k or more are paying astronomically higher taxes than I paid last year.
I say all of this to show you the house of cards is (not if) going to come tumbling down. Sooner or later, Galt will win out because us producers are going to get tired of paying the bill. Add all of the crap like this HOA is doing, it is no longer worth being a productive member of society.
The only way to defeat an enemy is to beat them so badly that they can no longer fight. If we take back the house and senate next year, those 50% on the left will still be there working to take back control in 2012. Socialism is a cancer and you can't "live with" it. And no, I'm not advocating any violence whatsoever against those on the left. By going Galt, we can let them defeat themselves with their own ideology and we never have to fire a single shot.
I'm sure Col Barfoot and many others (myself included) are wondering why we ever bothered to put a uniform on. So we could hand over our country to the looters and moochers?