John Galt or George Bailey

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which rights are individuals born with? Since you are so certain of this, I assume you can give a list.

The right to life.

The right to liberty.

 

[hgc]

The right to life.

The right to liberty.

OK. And who bestows these rights on newly born individuals?

Do individuals born into slavery have the right to liberty? If yes, how do you know they have these rights?
Do innocent civilians who are killed in war have the right to life? How might they express this right?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

OK. And who bestows these rights on newly born individuals?

Do individuals born into slavery have the right to liberty? If yes, how do you know they have these rights?
Do innocent civilians who are killed in war have the right to life? How might they express this right?

Nobody bestows these rights, they are inherent in humanity due consciousness.

Yes, they should refuse slavery.

Yes. The fact that another violates your right does not invalidate the right.

If one were to postulate that these rights are not inherent than the foundation for many evils will be established.

 

[hgc]

Nobody bestows these rights, they are inherent in humanity due consciousness.

Yes, they should refuse slavery.

Yes. The fact that another violates your right does not invalidate the right.

If one were to postulate that these rights are not inherent than the foundation for many evils will be established.

If I "refuse" slavery, but am still not free of my bonds, then have I still got the right to liberty? Where's it hiding?

I postulate that these rights are not inherent. Did I just loose evil upon the world?

The proof of rights is when they are exercised. All else is wankery. There is no evidence whatsoever that people are born with rights (if so, please provide). Rights don't exist as naturally occurring phenomena.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If I "refuse" slavery, but am still not free of my bonds, then have I still got the right to liberty? Where's it hiding?

You are confusing circumstance with reality.

I postulate that these rights are not inherent. Did I just loose evil upon the world?

This idea allows all to do anything.

Why is it that people do not murder constantly? Is it because they fear punishment or is it that they "know" that the other man has a right to life?

The proof of rights is when they are exercised. All else is wankery. There is no evidence whatsoever that people are born with rights (if so, please provide). Rights don't exist as naturally occurring phenomena.

You seem to be advocating might makes right. Does a man's power to take possession of your children give him the right to your children?

 

[hgc]

You are confusing circumstance with reality.

Trying to parse that statement, and can't make heads nor tails of it. What's the circumstance and what's the reality?

This idea allows all to do anything.

Why is it that people do not murder constantly? Is it because they fear punishment or is it that they "know" that the other man has a right to life?

You seem to be advocating might makes right. Does a man's power to take possession of your children give him the right to your children?

Well, something stops people from doing the "wrong" thing, except when it doesn't. For those that are morally constrained from murder and mayhem, it's a good and oft discussed question as to where that constraint comes from. I happen to think that it's necessary for the success of civil society - and thus people are trained from the cradle to bahave themselves. But certainly the fear of punishment is important for some people.

I'm not advocating anything. Just keeping it real.

 

[dudalb]

The "Natural Rights" theory has always seemed full of holes to me.

 

[dudalb]

George Bailey never made me read a sixty-five page monologue.

You win the thread.

 

[Soapy Sam]

So I take it you haven't read the book. I don't know why everyone gets so hung up on the fictional motor. It's more a symbolic potential than an actual potential. But of all the reasons to think of John Galt or Atlas Shrugged as "one odd book" this seems one of the weakest.



George Bailey's psychology is pretty messed up in the extreme. Sure, there are reasons why he can't leave town immediately, but we're told he's never, ever been able to take a trip to anywhere. He's unable to "make a dime" from all the houses his company has built and all the loans they've provided, while at the same time the rest of the town appears to prosper. Then there's the contrived emergency that sends George, mere minutes early, over the edge to the contemplation of suicide versus jail. The deconstruction is that after all his efforts, all his being a stand-up guy and savings people from themselves, his choice is to off himself. For such a smart guy, he should know that insurance doesn't pay for a suicide, and yet that's the crux on which the movie is based, and by which the angel Clarence is sent to save him.

Both characters have extreme issues and when viewed by the light of reality waver considerably.

No, I have not read the book.
Nor am I "hung up" on the fictional motor. I was merely amused by the term "Randian" relating to someone claiming a motor driven by static electricity, making an appearance on the James Randi Forum.
To the best of my understanding, both works are fiction, implying that the characters don't actually have any psychology.

Not that it matters.

 

[RobRoy]

No, I have not read the book.
Nor am I "hung up" on the fictional motor. I was merely amused by the term "Randian" relating to someone claiming a motor driven by static electricity, making an appearance on the James Randi Forum.

Mea culpa on the misinterpretation of your post, comparison to other people's hang ups, and the reasoning you provided for naming Atlas Shrugged "one odd book".

Since you didn't provide any other elements of the book, it seemed like this is what you based your surmise upon. This, of course, begs the question what did induce you to label the novel "one odd book" and also, what did you mean by your initial comments?

To the best of my understanding, both works are fiction, implying that the characters don't actually have any psychology.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were comparing the fictional characteristics of John Galt to George Bailey. Further, I thought you were making that comparison to determine which one "seems like a pretty regular guy."

In my experience, all characters have a psychology, even if it's just a pale and poor reflection of the author's. Critics, fans and even psychologists make use of writers' characters to provide perspective on authors all the time.

However, if we are not to use the perceived psychology of the the two characters to compare them, what then would you like to use?

Not that it matters.

Not really, no, unless we're going to make statements about the two works or the characters and then discuss them.

 

[juniper_ann]

I like It's A Wonderful Life. It's a metaphor for how someone who doesn't look especially important can make positive differences in many people's lives. We all know we all die. Death is the great equalizer, but everyone leaves a legacy. It's nice to think during a winter holiday break that just being kind and doing what you feel is right can make a difference to other people. I buy into that around the holidays.

I always wonder what Clarence chose not to show George. “Oh, look, there’s Ralph the mechanic. You don’t remember, but you helped a bag lady across the street as a kid. If you hadn’t, she would have been run over by a truck, killing both her and her unborn child—who would not have grown up to become a serial killer. Instead, you helped a serial killer survive, so you never met Ralph. Or Alice. Or Steve. Or …” No life can only leave positive ripples.

What I though was sad ever since I was ~12 was that in the “George” universe, George’s wife Mary doesn’t wear glasses, but in the “no George” universe, she does wear glasses. Since there were no contacts at the time, this means that in the “George” universe, Mary has lived in a blurry world for years…perhaps in an effort to please her frustrated, depressive husband?

Err…sorry about stomping on your holiday fuzzies, Senex.

 

[Distracted1]

Off topic I'm sure, but in the non-George universe Mary is a librarian- perhaps years of fine print under low lights contributed to her eye problems?

I realise the stories themselves are both well into the realm of fantasy; I posted the thread to discuss the characters, not the unlikely plot lines.

 

[RobRoy]

Off topic I'm sure, but in the non-George universe Mary is a librarian- perhaps years of fine print under low lights contributed to her eye problems?

I realise the stories themselves are both well into the realm of fantasy; I posted the thread to discuss the characters, not the unlikely plot lines.

I think this could fall into the line of character discussion. Consider that without George there, Mary either must have decided that no man was good enough to marry, or no man considered her worthy of pursuit. Either choice seems rather unlikely, but the story presents us with that as reality.

Interestingly, this parallels with Rand's Atlas Shrugged as Dagny knew that there was one man out there who was the right one for her, and no other, no matter how "heroic" would do until she found him.