Posted on 09/30/2022 3:44:58 AM PDT by EBH
"As the tunnel came closer, they saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn.
It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them.
The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men.
The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion 'for a good cause' who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others - to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause',which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by 'a feeling' -a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied soley on his own 'good intentions' and on the power of a gun.
The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing.
The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that mend are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rules, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice.
The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.
The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them.
The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.
The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.
The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.
The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, 'I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.'
The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels.
The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.
The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a lawyer who had said, 'Me? I'll find a way to get along under any political system.'
The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind - how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that the tunnel exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? - no principles - why should you be bound by the laws of cause and effect? - no rights - why shouldn't you attach men to their jobs by force? - no morality - what's moral about running a railroad? - no absolutes - what difference does it make to you whether you live or die anyway?. He taught that we know nothing - why oppose the orders of your superiors? - that we can never be certain of anything - how do you know you're right? - that we must act on the expediency of the moment - you don't want to risk your job do you?
The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, 'Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?'
The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, 'The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.'
These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth." - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged", p566-568
Is the only way to let it/them all die?
Can people of this mindset be saved from this fate?
Yes, N/A, No.
Objectivism implies it is not within our ability to 'let it/them all die' any more than to save them from their fate.
A=A
Yes. And a better idea might be to push back before the killing starts.
Christians should reject an erroneous pastor’s teaching that “turn the other cheek” means to accept all manner of atrocity with meekness.
Rand does a great job of describing the parasitic nature of Communism. The people she described riding that train could have been made to confront reality sooner.
You cannot argue with a liberal.
They are smug in their arrogance and self-righteous indignation, that you are an ignorant Cretan and must be ignored, destroyed or imprisoned for your useless, antiquated and selfish ideas..........................
Now you’ve gone and done it! I have to read the book again.
For the 4th time!
Ayn Rand was so profoundly stupid that, not only did she name her purely subjective philosophy "objectivism", but she disseminated the internal philosophy of communism as somehow anti-communist. The supposedly earned-wealth of all of her theoretical protagonists was always fiat currency backed up by the threat of government violence.
Post; comments BUMP!
“The people she described riding that train could have been made to confront reality sooner.”
Probably not. You can’t reason a person out of a position they weren’t reasoned into. Besides, it’s so much better when people who refuse to deal with reality are forced to by that same reality.
The Left is incapable of reason. In fact they hate it. They’d sooner smash your head open with a rock. History proves me right on that.
L
“The supposedly earned-wealth of all of her theoretical protagonists was always fiat currency backed up by the threat of government violence.”
That was all they had. And Francisco D’Anconio dealt with that in his Money Speech.
L
Ouch! A Libertarian who finds Rand to be “soft”!
Did you find, as I did, that she had her protagonists resort to the force that she spent so much time decrying? It seemed a cop-out, to me.
I don’t think I understand how she was Communist, but I never understood how “objectivism” could be a morality, either.
In Atlas Shrugged, there was a strong emphasis on a gold standard currency. Dagney and Hank lived in the real world, of course, and not Atlantis, as did the reader.
In Galt’s Gulch the only currency allowed was gold.
If Rand was unaware of fiat currency why would this have been emphasized in these chapters of her book?
Perhaps I am not clear. You do not help these people to confront reality by reasoning with them. You de-fund their non-realities. The “professor” may learn what reality is, when he has to learn to ask “Do you want fries with that?” Additionally, he will be more productive.
Oh wow. I didn't expect the argument to end so quickly.
“The “professor” may learn what reality is, when he has to learn to ask “Do you want fries with that?”
Maybe. But I think it far more likely he’d be out in the street destroying other peoples property.
L
There was a book study group right here on FR a few years ago.
You’d have to search the archives for the weekly chapter threads. Great commentary!
One of the FReepers even published a follow-up on Amazon books.
“I didn’t expect the argument to end so quickly.”
Why not? It was easy enough to refute.
L
“fiat currency backed up by the threat of government violence”
Your post reminds me of an old favorite:
https://www.amazon.com/No-Treason-Constitution-Authority/dp/1938357000
Truth hurts—a lot.
The truth is that homo sapiens still hasn’t figured out how to live in a society where we are not ripping off other people and telling them it is for their own good.
Communism is the preferred espoused philosophy of high-functioning sociopaths who don't actually believe anything they outwardly preach. They operate under a "rules for thee, but not for me" methodology that creates a two-tiered society in which they live like kings among the squalled masses whom they regard as inferiors. They create this society by differentiating between those who are politically inside a certain political sphere (the communist party itself, usually), and those who are to be politically disenfranchised over ideologically differences or who are necessarily keep outside the sphere of influence in order to rarefy wealth and power for the elites.
Rand (who was educated in a communist institution) was a low-functioning sociopath who picked up on the internalized morality of communism and repackaged that philosophy as her own without the intellectual wherewithal to realize that she was just another anti-christian-post-morality leftist saying the quiet part out loud.
Ask Bernie Sanders, John Fetterman, Cenk Uygur, Hasan Piker, or any other rich socialist why they can't give their own wealth away before touch the common man's, and they will unfallingly espouse Randiest rhetoric -- "Why should I?"
But you didn't refute anything. You admitted that Randians only have the threat of government violence behind them.
“You admitted that Randians only have the threat of government violence behind them.”
When did I do that? They participated quite unwillingly in the fiat money scheme and more than once character warned of the consequences.
So your premise is flawed.
L
I agree, only He can. Unfortunately the majority of people who hold these mindsets do not believe in Him- they arrogantly believe they are smarter and know more than anyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.