Atlas Shrugged turns 50

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Your thoughts are completely dichotomous to my way of thinking...it is a given that we inherit certain traits, both helpful and harmful. How we deal with the hand we are dealt makes all the difference. Those are the two main elements, not luck, not environment.

My fortune is treasure to some, failure to others. I decide which in my life. Humbly.

Each time I have this chat, people try to help me understand this. And.....I can't. I haven't. I'm a gentle spirit whose company is, apparently, very pleasant. I'm having a beer this evening with Mr. Higgins. I'm not boasting when I say he will probably find me charming and humble. Everyone does. People credit me with this, similar to your remarks, Seahawk. I must have made some good choices, they say. I say I had a good Mom.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Superman

Each time I have this chat, people try to help me understand this. And.....I can't. I haven't. I'm a gentle spirit whose company is, apparently, very pleasant. I'm having a beer this evening with Mr. Higgins. I'm not boasting when I say he will probably find me charming and humble. Everyone does. People credit me with this, similar to your remarks, Seahawk. I must have made some good choices, they say. I say I had a good Mom.

My best to you both...and your Moms. Wish I could join you...

[Superman]

I wish you could too.

[scottmandue]

I would like to take a moment to point out...

That my dogs breath smell like dog food.













and reading your guys post makes my head hurt!

[Rondinone]

Originally Posted by JanusCole

...certainly nobody who understands economics. Money is just a fungible substitute for "wealth". It is a tool for making economic transactions more efficient. The wealth it represents can come in many forms. It can represent things "produced by men" as Rand suggests or it can represent other things, like natural resources. For instance, I can pay money in exchange for the mineral rights beneath a piece of real estate and no men are required to produce anything.

Here is a decent place to start if you want to understand money...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

It seems as though Rand's character, d'Aconia is suggesting a different definition of "money" than the standard definition. In his definition, "looters" and "moochers" don't use "money" as a tool. So his definition of "money" seems to be only that money which is earned directly "in payment for your effort". I doubt anyone here would argue with the virtue of earning money in payment for personal effort. The only problem I see is that this definition excludes people who make money via investing - since they are receiving payment for the direct efforts of others. It also excludes people who make money in my earlier example - by owning a valuable natural resource (which he/she may have inherited and therefore invested no personal effort). D'Aconia's definition of "money" may demonize investors and owners of non-human capital as "looters" and "moochers' since they don't personally "produce". But those people are nonetheless essential to the functioning of a capitalist economy.

You really should read the book before you try to explain it. This book is told from the perspective of those who make investments, good and bad. One of the secondary protagonists (mulligan) is famous for his investments, including his investments in John Galt's gulch and Hank Rearden. You fabricated a "definition" then discredited it. That makes no sense.

D'Anconia owned a copper mining company! That he inherited!

[Wrecked944]

Originally Posted by Rondinone

You really should read the book before you try to explain it. This book is told from the perspective of those who make investments, good and bad. One of the secondary protagonists (mulligan) is famous for his investments, including his investments in John Galt's gulch and Hank Rearden. You fabricated a "definition" then discredited it. That makes no sense.

D'Anconia owned a copper mining company! That he inherited!

As I stated before. I have read the book. Looking at my book collection, I've also read many of her essays, Anthem, Fountainhead, Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, the voice of reason, The Virtue of Selfishness, and parts of The romantic manifest (never got al lthe way to the end). I've also read some stuff by Nathaniel Brandon. Have you?

If you read my comments, then it should be clear I was pointing out an inconsistency in THAT ONE SPEECH. Then I seperately said I wished she had examined other possibilities for defining self interest.

It is amazing to me that Rand's enthusiasts always say you "obviously haven't read her books" simply because I came to different conclusions. It makes me wish people were required to take courses in western philosophy and logic in college. Then discussion of Rand would be less likely to end with "you either get it or you don't" or "you obviously haven't read her books."

Please, everyone on this thread. Raise you hand if you've actually taken (and passed!) A college level course in western philosophy or logic! And if Rand is the only western philosopher you've studied, then speak up and admit it.

Originally Posted by legion

I'm surprised. I've honestly never heard anyone say that before.

Now you've heard it twice. I was required to read Anthem in a regular, non-AP, English class in High School in NJ. Read the rest in college while taking philosophy courses or on my own after college.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by JanusCole

It makes me wish people were required to take courses in western philosophy and logic in college. Then discussion of Rand would be less likely to end with "you either get it or you don't" or "you obviously haven't read her books."

Please, everyone on this thread. Raise you hand if you've actually taken (and passed!) A college level course in western philosophy or logic! And if Rand is the only western philosopher you've studied, then speak up and admit it.



Now you've heard it twice. I was required to read Anthem in a regular, non-AP, English class in High School in NJ. Read the rest in college while taking philosophy courses or on my own after college.

Janus' observation is the same as mine. Sure, Rand has some good contributions. But the notion that she is some sort of groundbreaking philosopher, or any kind of philosopher for that matter, is laughable. The most modern writer I would call a "philosopher" would probably be Bertrand Russell. His writings are quite fascinating. But then......he does not give people an excuse to worship successful people (heros). It's all the same pablum. Folks would rather watch American Idol than Congressional hearings. Same deal. Potato chips are better than broccoli.

[lendaddy]

It's more a matter of admiring/appreciating determination and results. You find fault with that?

[Superman]

I admire and appreciate determination and results. I even like Capitalism. But I also place those good things in perspective. As I said earlier, it may be just as fair to credit Welfare with progress as Heros. We've decided we're not going to let people starve. So.....heros can take risks. Businesses go bankrupt all the time, and creditors get shafted, unpaid workers get shafted, and the business owner is out taking thousands of dollars from new customers the next day......under a new LLC.

I appreciate the heros. But I don't think we owe all of society to them. And I don't agree that heros will pack up their toys and go home unless we cut their tax rates and make statues in their likeness. The "producers" I know are incapable of being lazy. Take away their fortunes and they'll make another one. They produce. Ministers preach. Fire fighters fight fires. Baristas make coffee. If everyone were a "hero" in the Rand sense, fires would rage unfettered. What about the guy who talks to underpriveleged kids in the darkest, most dangerous part of town? Compared to Kenneth Lay, who is the real hero?

[Rearden]

Supe, would Rand consider you a moocher or a looter? I have no idea what you do for a living, but it sounds like you are trying really hard to discredit her -- as if you take it personally.

[lendaddy]

Does Ken Lay create a job for the kid allowing him to move his family out of the ghetto?

In all seriousness that's actually the difference I see between libs and cons, and perhaps you and I. You find beauty in intentions where I find beauty in results.

[Superman]

Rearden, I flail around here inciting disputes because that's my hobby. I'm perhaps more balanced than I seem here. But I'm definitely on the liberal side.

As far as Rand goes, one problem I have is the net result of idolizing selfish behavior. The fact that we value rule-breakers and folks who cut in front of others here in America, as long as those tactics score victory......is not a good thing. In my mind. It is in others, but not mine. And I also have this Rand pet-peeve from my days as an undergraduate Philosophy student. She was considered a brilliant philosopher at that time, by some, and the closer I looked the more pathetic that appeared. Some writer glorifies greed and demonizes the lowly simple folk........and is considered a brilliant philosopher. It is frightening that a society can be so devoid of moral and ethical direction, but that's what we've got. Clinton's BJ didn't cause American moral decline. Idolizing guys who step on others' heads to climb the ladder, now that's sick.

Yes, Len. You've got it. In philosophy, in Ethics, it is noticed there is sometimes a conflict between judging an action by its result, or judging the action by its intended result. It seems crystal clear to me that the action (the decision of the person) should be evaluated (for purposes of ethics) by the intention. If a person intended to feed the homeless in New York but instead inadvertently made them sick.......was that an unethical action? Conversely, if someone intended to kill everyone in New York but ended up killing all the vermin.......was that decision ethical?

Len, the one big problem I have with Labor, at times, is its belief that the ends justify the means. You, and Rand, and so many many others think that wealth and success are moral goods. You don't really think that, but it's convenient to pretend. It's just a way of justifying greed. "Oh, but a rising tide raises all boats....." Bull****.

[Rearden]

What do the 'Atlas Shrugged' protagonists do that is unethical? It has been 2-3 years since I last read the book, but I don't recall any such thing.

[DanielDudley]

Proving one point does not make the converse untrue.

To imply that all who value money are inherently virtuous is patently absurd. To say that many would like to feel virtuous about making money, and are responsible around that domain would be true - as far as it goes. It is just about as true to say that if you want to win the rat race, you have to be the biggest rat. Some do it that way as well.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Rearden

What do the 'Atlas Shrugged' protagonists do that is unethical? It has been 2-3 years since I last read the book, but I don't recall any such thing.

The book does not dignify unethical behavior. I suspect you know this. What is does is to divide the citizenry into those who produce the most, versus those who do not. It underscores the impact and importance of those producers, and suggests their actions, their victories, are among, if not heading the list outright, the most important human actions. Its logical conclusion is that we should protect and encourage the producers. America loves to hear this message. America loves those winners. America takes this notion to somewhat of an extreme. I've used traffic as an example of social structure several times here. In America, if somebody is able to drive 80 mph while most of traffic is doing 65, and if that commute also involves a number of yellow lights and maybe even a red occasionally (where there is no signal camera and nobody got hurt), crossing a couple of double-yellow lines and cutting into merge lines up front rather than at the backs of those lines, then we practically stand and applaud. That's a great victory. cutting a few corners and winning the race. Double-victory.

Rand fans tend to support the notion that producers should be cut some real slack in terms of taxes, for example. Producers should be coddled. don't want to piss them off or upset them. They might take their toys and go home. And......that would make us all so very sad, since they are the most important people in society. Not the fire fighters. Not the ministers. Not the mayors and governors. Not the judges. The folks who scratch and fight and win. It is the highest American value. Putting all others in your wake.

As I say, it is a message very deeply beloved by a few. I'm not one of those. And just as an example, I do labor relations in the construction industry. I enjoy the work, believe in it, it helps people and it pays my bills. Am I rich? No. Could I be rich. No doubt about it. One very clear observation is that being a successful construction contractor is something even an idiot can do. This has been proven by hundreds of thousands of idiots. It would be relatively easy. But that's not my goal. I don't think it is the Supreme Good.

[Rearden]

Your traffic example makes no sense. Rand celebrates the people who create the jobs in our society. Celebrate might not be the right word. She very clearly shows what happens to society when these people disappear.

She has nothing bad to say about people who make an honest living. She devastatingly exposes those in society who loot and mooch.

[BeyGon]

Superman, I think you read a different Atlas Shrugged than I did, I don't see any of the same messages you see. But then, I am a product of public schools.
I also have been in construction most of my life and I don't see all, or even most contractors as idiots. Some, as in any field are, even in your field I guess.

[legion]

What was the name of Dagney Taggart's assistant?

[the]

Originally Posted by legion

What was the name of Dagney Taggart's assistant?

Does he share the same taste in cars as you?

Timing Belt

[legion]

Wow...good call!