Topic: Politics
Who is a John Galt Republican (or Democrat or Libertarian)? John Galt is a fictional character of the best-selling novel 'Atlas Shrugged', so what does it mean to modify one's political affiliation with his name?by Nickalis N. Tower
(libertarian)
Monday, November 24, 2008
During the past year, after having put a lot of enthusiasm, time, and energy into supporting Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign as a precinct leader, a campaign contributor, and designated caucus speaker, I decided to learn about Ron Paul's affinity for Robert Taft, and came to agree with Ron Paul that being a member of one of the two major parties was the best way to get involved politically, and to maintain political visibility in my local county. I originally thought of myself as a Ron Paul Republican, but having a personal affinity for Ayn Rand's political views over those of Robert Taft, I decided to coin a new type of Republican: the John Galt Republican.
I was at first comfortable using the term to apply to myself, without explicitly defining it any further than 'a Republican who admires and understands Ayn Rand's ethics and politics'.
But now, I submit, to a candid world, my explicit definition of what it means to be a 'John Galt Republican'. And since Ayn Rand was agnostic with regards to political parties during her life, I've also realized that you can prefix your own political party affiliation with 'John Galt', if you agree with the items of definition, below.
Definition
1) You've read one or more of Ayn Rand's works, and by doing so, your world views have either been changed or strengthened to a positive degree.
2) You can specifically talk about which of Rand's ideas affected you.
3) You hold a positive view of Ayn Rand's ideas that have affected you.
4) You do not care to gossip about Ayn Rand's (or anyone else's) personal affairs.
5) You do not care to talk about Ayn Rand's (or anyone else's) metaphysical views.
6) You judge ideas on their merits, not on who espouses them.
7) You have an affinity with (or have sworn) the oath of John Galt.
8) You are a productive individual, or live by the trader principle.
9) You shoot down collectivist ideas, in a rational manner, when and where you are able to do so.
10) You think that the Republican (or Democratic or Libertarian) Party today is either led by big government statists, or is impotent to effect change toward greater freedoms, or both.
11) You hold voluntary charity as permissible, and statist redistributions as impermissible.
12) You hold initiation of force and fraud as the prime evil to eliminate from personal and political affairs.
13) OPTIONAL: You have an affinity for laissez faire capitalism.*
14) OPTIONAL (for Republicans): You have an affinity for 19th Century liberal Republicanism, Robert Taft Republicanism, or Paterson-Lane-Rand-Mises-Hayak libertarianism.*
*The reason that the items aren't required, is because some people don't care to study politics.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Nickalis N. Tower only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Nickalis N. Tower is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Why does having an interest in talking about Ayn Rand's grounding of philosophy (including ethics and politics) in metaphysics disqualify one from being a "John Galt" Republican/Democrat/Libertarian? It would seem like it is the other way around -- not having a clear understanding of the role of proper metaphysics in philosophy (including ethics and politics) would be a prerequisite for being anywhere in the ballpark of what John Galt stands for.
My edit didn't take effect. The last sentence was supposed to be:
It would seem like it is the other way around -- not having a clear understanding of the role of proper metaphysics in philosophy (including ethics and politics) would disqualify one from claiming to be anywhere in the ballpark of what John Galt stands for.
Does Ryand believe in limited government? I don't remember her having solutions but did bull eyed the problems. I don't see how a free society can have a government. By definition they are incompatable.
An interesting proposition, except that I'm not sure what relevance #4 and #5 have....? I can't say I've ever had a conversation with anyone about either, but I don't know that even the most unseemly gossip in these areas would change one's answers on the rest, which is where it counts.
That said, I personally tend to prefer the tone that Ron Paul and Mary Ruwart bring to these issues. They are not nearly so curmudgeonly. We will be far more effective in spreading liberty if libertarians will refer to those that differ with them as "mistaken" rather than as "evil."
John Galt did not compromise on reality, reason, individualism or capitalism. He did not vote Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. Ron Paul would not get within cooee of Galt's Gulch.
I want to be the first LUKE SKYWALKER REPUBLICAN (or Democrat or Libertarian).
1) You have to have a light saber.
2) You have to have a sister named Leia.
3) You have to believe in Yoda.
4) You have to love the sequels as much as the originals.
5) You have to believe that FICTIONAL CHARACTERS are the best because no one can question them, research their backgrounds, and the world they exist in is MADE UP.
6) You don't like OTHER PEOPLE to join your WEIRD club because you like to be UNIQUE ~ like the people who want to pierce their lips, tongues, and eyebrows, color their hair purple, and wear their pants sagging down on their cheeks. Cooooool, man!
7) You can't tell anyone until the last minute but ~ YOUR DADDY IS REALLY DARTH VADER! I guess that explains it all!
What a mess. This part of a candid world can only say: Rand understood that her politics flowed from her metaphysics, and she showed how capitalism was its only valid expression. I know who John Galt is, and he would have nothing to do with the vast majority of those meeting this confused "definition."
I can't recall which politician was running for President when Ayn Rand wrote the following (paraphrased) "I don't give a damn about his metaphysics, as long as he's right about everything else."
Me personally, I agree with Ayn Rand's metaphysical view. But when I'm rubbing elbows in a political environment, I don't care about anyone else's, nor do I care to convert people to mine. John Galt (in the book) didn't care to discuss it nor convert people to his way of thinking, OTHER THAN telling people (in his radio address, paraphrasing): "I'm interested in this world and no other"
Galt's radio message was 43 pages long! You can't "paraphrase" from that anymore than you can "paraphrase" from the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address.
What you're trying to do is "insinuate" something he said, and that's what got you in trouble when you tried to insinuate something that Ron Paul said (remember: Prometheus) and Ayn Rand said (remember: "God bless, Ron Paul.").
Your record on accurate attributions is pretty poor!
Interesting, but how could a so-called John Galt Republican believe in number 12, yet hold 13 optional? Rights are rights, and laissez-faire is simply what you get when you protect rights consistently. Number 13 could be optional if it said, for instance, "You are an activist for laissez-faire capitalism," since not every Galt-minded individual needs to make political economy their life focus. But it is inaccurate as currently stated. I would strike 5 and 14 as well.
Stageira: The reason for the contradictory nature of this whole post is that the purpose of the poster is not to have an integrated, principled view of the world, but to have yet more tools in their pragmatic arsenal to pull out and use when it becomes profitable to do so.
They'll whip out the reference to Rand, to Galt, to the free market, whenever they need to dupe some key conservative demographic into supporting a piece of legislation.
They'll likewise attack Rand and the free market when it becomes politically profitable to do so, regardless of the facts of reality that contradict their claims. The mortgage crisis and Great Depression come to mind.
I can only describe your bizarre definition as a short-circuiting of the brain. You clearly have not in any way integrated the philosophy of Objectivism, which John Galt epitomizes and exemplifies in a non-contradictory way. Your views are like saying, "well, a little bit of socialism is good," or "I'm an agnostic because just in case there is a god." As far as the "option" of laissez-faire, do you have the "option" whether or not to eat? Your views are inherently irrational and contradictory and unintegrated. Either take the time to learn about Objectivism or not. But hijacking someone else's ingenious ideas and contorting them is intellectually and morally dishonest.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
