Tag Archives: philosophy

Who Is John Galt?

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

After recently finishing Atlas Shrugged for the first time I could finally answer this question for myself. Perhaps stemming from the state of the economy, Atlas Shrugged has become wildly popular; after selling 200 thousand copies in 2008 it sold half a million in 2009. Although I beg to differ from much of Rand’s objectivist philosophy of life, where economics and politics are concerned I found she had some terrific insights which are applicable today.

John Galt is the man who felt no debt to society and took care of himself, not asking for handouts from anyone nor giving any. When the government demanded he give his mind and money for others who did not work for it, he went on strike and took the other movers of his world with him. With them gone, the nation went to pieces as the government watched each regulation they made cause more damage than the one before.

In our day as well, where there is a crisis more government control seems to appear. The increased regulations and restrictions on production cause more problems which the government again steps in to fix. What could help the people is the exact opposite, freedom to spend their own money and produce at their maximum capacity without restrictions.

An intriguing, though very time consuming read, the length gives you the time to digest how each directive affects jobs and production and how the businesses relate to one another. Competition is welcomed and there is no place for the government’s force – only for the justice of receiving what one has earned. Though this does let some have more than others, it harkens back to the old quote “free people are not equal and equal people are not free.”

Great Quote

Posted on by razma766
Reply

“There are, though, many especially those greedy for renown and glory, who steal from one group the very money they lavish upon another. They think that they will appear beneficent towards their friends if they enrich them by any method whatsoever. But that is so far from being a duty that in fact nothing could be more opposed to duty. We should therefore see that the liberality we exercise in assisting our friends does not harm anyone. Consequently, the transference of money by Lucius Sulla and Gaius Caesar from its lawful owners to others ought not to be seen as liberal: nothing is liberal if it is not also just.” – ON DUTIES, Bk.1. XIV. 43 (Marcus Tullius Cicero)

Original Post from Think Markets

Mackinac Center Current Comment :: 14 July 2008

Posted on by jsrule
Reply

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

Isaac Morehouse has a great Current Comment today that has been crossposted several places across the liberty-loving blogosphere.  He writes about the false moderation of a mixed economy, and how choosing a middle ground between a free economy and a planned economy is really no middle ground at all.  Morehouse defends the claim that the true middle ground is actually the free market.  Go ahead, and check it out.

Changing the World!

Posted on by jsrule
1

Yeah, but how?

Photo taken from Lifehack.org

Most people I’ve talked with, after thinking about it for a while, have told me that the world needs to change. They might want world peace, the legalization of marijuana, more hot dog stands on Main Street, or even just a few extra dimes in their pocket, but they want change. After talking a bit longer, these conversations also tends to conclude that we, the individuals who see a need for change, need to create the change ourselves somehow. Doing so can be a bit difficult, however, especially when one has no idea where to begin.

Well, a recent lecture by Institute for Humane Studies’ Nigel Ashford convinced me that the place to begin is in deciding how the world is changed. Once we have a theory of social change, we can then begin to create the change we are seeking. Ashford proposes three different theories of social change that I would like to briefly describe here.

Continue reading →

Locke & Kant: Why Form a State?

Posted on by jsrule
8

John Locke & Immanuel Kant are two of the greatest philosophers in western history, and both had quite a bit to say about the state and its role in our lives. The two both argued that freedom was essential to human rationality, but they differed as to how it was affected by the formation of the state.

Locke held that men give up their ‘natural power’when they come into the state to gain the benefits of long life and peace. People create a social contract in which they give up a portion of their absolute liberty in order to gain long life and happiness, which it is the state’s duty to provide. No longer can anyone do exactly as he pleases, because he must submit to the laws of the governing body. Such is the necessary trade-off for Locke: give up the right to perfect liberty in order to gain the good of society.

Kant, on the other hand, proposed that the state is formed to protect freedom. Kant argued that in a pre-state society, any sufficiently strong person or body can coerce others into doing whatever the coercer wants. There is no true right to property or freedom or anything else, because there is no one who can protect them. Sure, a person can do exactly as he wants to do, but no one could legitimately defend him against those who oppress him. His rights, therefore, do not exist. The state, however, can enforce a monopoly on coercion, and legitimately protect the oppressed against the oppressors. Thus, Kant argued, the good of society is to preserve freedom.

Which view is right? Are either correct? Let me know what you think in the comments below.

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern