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
That is a corollary of the rule, “Do unto others before they do unto you.”
Yeah. they are walking, talking examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.
“If they are Do-Gooders, how can they reject truth and facts?”
That’s the definition of do-gooders - people who make decisions strictly based on emotions. Facts, truth, logic, cause and effect are foreign to them, even despised by them.
They are what I call the “pathological compassionates”, who believe that everyone regardless of how destructive their behavior is to themselves and society deserves compassion.
Worse yet they insist on delegating their compassion to everyone else, by voting for people who will pass laws to that effect.
And for whatever reason they manage to get their way.
“The supposedly earned-wealth of all of her theoretical protagonists was always fiat currency backed up by the threat of government violence.”
Yes, the very same currency we all use, the supposed income and supposed wealth of all (supposed?) Americans.
‘Our value/belief system is predicated in a belief in God’
our belief system, as stipulated in the U.S. constitution, is predicated upon the principle of fervent anti-monarchism; our founding document does not mention God, it cites the Deist concept of Creator, an entity premised upon formulation, but not interference, with the progress of its creation...we can debate the comparative values of Deist vs Theist all day long, but we cannot debate which of the systems our country is built upon...
in any event, one could logically argue that accepting God’s creation of the world and its inhabitants, it follows that He would not favor one principle of human governance over another; if He created all of us, He loves all of us, capitalist, communist, freemen or facist, regardless of all our various warts and follies...
“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.”
Whoa! You can almost taste the venom oozing from that post.
Sounds like you’re one of those fundamentalist closed minded Bible thumping, “loving christian”, who regards anyone who dares to criticizes religion, or specifically Christian do-gooders, to be Satan incarnate. Am I close?
To call her a communists is to be completely unhinged from reality. It’s like calling white black, up down, war peace...
You have it against her for one and one reason only - she wasn’t fond of religion including Christianity. And that blinds you to all her other virtues.
And I would not be at all surprised that if it wasn’t for her criticism of religion you would agree with most everything she espouses and be her biggest cheerleader. Am I right?
Now, as a good Christian be honest.
Back to the top.
NO! Not at all. She never thought the solution is to apply force and kill them.
If anything she would leave them to themselves to inevitably perish of their own flawed beliefs and actions. Effectively letting them destroy themselves.
Actually that reflects the whole premise of the book.
That post reads like a psychological description of most politicians (both parties), government employees (federal & state), 81,000,000 voters, and all the MIVs streaming across the borders...
Apophis is our most probable solution...
For the 4th time!
Slacker!
There was a book study group right here on FR a few years ago.
Publius led it.
If you want to argue about beliefs, as in Western Civilization and traditional American briefs what really needs to asked is what is belief? That is very abstract. Perhaps then we could agree on people’s true beliefs can be defined in their behavior. That’s not perfect, but suffices. Our behaviors are formed in multiple ways, some is neurological, other’s environmental, and cultural to name a few. Historically, culture, which in includes religion, forms the basis of acceptable behavior in society. When religion was much more dominant in our society, there was greater unity, even among atheists, because the vast majority of people, even the atheists, conformed to the same standards of behavior. These behaviors were rooted in religious beliefs. In a sense, the majority of society rules when it com to acceptable behavior.
Presently, there is a big divide between those that have traditional beliefs/behavior and those that worship the state. More significantly, both camps are large. Thus, we seem extremes in acceptable behavior. For instance, being pro-life vs. pro-murder (abortion), and traditional and scientifically accepted gender (born male/female) vs. transgenderism (whatever you feel like at the moment).
Nearly every issue can be distilled into behavior. Western Civilization has advanced over the millennia based on Christian/Jewish behaviors. There is a wisdom that works. You can be non-religious, but still accept the wisdom found in the New and Old Testaments. The stories in both date back prior to their writing and some can be found in other religions, with names and minor details being different. These are archetypes. They exist and persist because they convey wisdom that is time proven.
Contrast that with the beliefs and behaviors of socialism/communism. Those are new beliefs. They are incompatible with the wisdom of Western Civilization. They fail, because it’s not wisdom at all. And when they fail, millions are brutally murdered, and others live their lives in abject misery.
The choice is clear for me. I am going to continue to behave has a Christian. That doesn’t ever require me to believe in Christ (which I do).
Well, since you had the courtesy to associate doing good with Christianity, I'll make the concession. As far as slings and arrows go, this isn't a bad one to catch.
WE must also not apply our modern day biases, beliefs, understanding, or presumptions to our Founding Fathers. The "founding document does not mention God, it cites the Deist concept of Creator", possibly because the only recognized Theologians of the day were part of the British Government that had oppressed us.
That system still exists today, with the Church of England, King Charles III being the Lord Protector of the Realm, represented in the House of Lords with the Bishops and Archbishops seated in Parliament as Lords Spiritual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
The monarch has been supreme head of the Church of England since 1558.
Do-gooder...
“One who advocates or performs what they believe to be the morally superior course of action, even in the face of overwhelming experience or factual evidence that its effect is only irrelevant or harmful.”
You fit that description to a T... but you knew that.
Well, at least I don't advocate a philosophy the end-goal purpose of which is to moralize rape (true fact).
Thank you for posting this. I thought it was one of the more haunting passages of AS and I think about it often when I have to listen to libtards.
I need to purchase Rand’s works again. I lent all mine out and they never returned, which is fine if they are still circulating out there somewhere.
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.