Posted on 07/04/2009 10:32:05 AM PDT by GoodDay
Despite a number of differences I have with Ayn Rand on issues of religion and philosophy, her 1957 magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," definitely steered me away from the leftist upbringing I had, and introduced me to the world of conservative ideas and authors: Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, Isabel Paterson, and many others.
Universally panned by literary critics of the day, "Atlas" was, nevertheless, a bestseller in 1957, and continued to sell about 100,000 copies a year for 51 consecutive years. 52 years later -- just after the inauguration of zerobama -- "Atlas" has apparently tripled its sales and has been flying off the shelves at bookstores.
For those who have never read it, "Atlas Shrugged" -- originally titled in its draft form "The Strike" -- is about a mixed-economy United States falling rapidly into full-fledged socialism. As it does so, all the highly competent people of individual accomplishment -- in business, science, and the arts -- mysteriously start to resign their positions, quit their jobs...and disappear. Naturally, the disappearance of these achievers -- these "Atlases" whose productivity carries the rest of the world -- causes the crash of the economy and society in general to occur ever more rapidly. Why these people are disappearing and where they are going is the core of the plot...which I certainly won't give away. Love her style of writing or hate it, "Atlas Shrugged" is relevant and essential reading today.
I read it twice in rapid succession in high school, lo these many years, and am now rereading it in light of the aggressive attempts at a socialist coup in our country. There's a passage toward the beginning of the novel that flabbergasted me, since it predicts with great accuracy the "bailout mentality" started by Bush and continued and augmented under zerobama. The passage also describes how industry is complicit with government in its own regulation and what it expects to gain from it (i.e., protection from competition).
The scene has to do with attempts to regulate the railroads, an industry that plays a starring dramatic role in the novel, as well as being an effective visual metaphor for goal-oriented achievement in general.
Here is an excerpt of Miss Rand's description of the regulation from "Atlas Shrugged":
__________________________________________________
"The proposal which they passed was known as the 'Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule.' When they voted for it, the members of the National Alliance of Railroads sat in a large hall in the deepending twilight of a late autumn evening and did not look at one another . . .
. . . No railroad was mentioned by name in the speeches that preceded the voting. The speeches dealt only with the public welfare. It was said that while the public welfare was threatened by shortages of transportation, railroads were destroying one another through vicious competition, on 'the brutal policy of dog-eat-dog.' While there existed blighted areas where rail service had been discontinued, there existed at the same time, large regions where two or more railroads were competing for a traffic barely sufficient for one. It was said that there were great opportunities for younger railroads in the blighted areas. While it was true that such areas offered little economic incentive at present, a public-spirited railroad, it was said, would undertake to provide transportation for the struggling inhabitants, since the prime purpose of a railroad was public service, not profit.
Then it was said that large, established railroad systems were essential to the public welfare; and that the collapse of one of them would be a national catastrophe; and that if one such system had happened to sustain a crushing loss in a public-spirited attempt to contribute to international good will, it was entitled to public support to help it survive the blow . . .
. . . The Anti-dog-eat-dog-Rule was described as a measure of 'voluntary self-regulation' intended 'the better to enforce' the laws long since passed by the country's Legislature. The Rule provided that the members of the National Alliance of Railroads were forbidden to engage in practices defined as 'destructive competition'; that in regions declared to be restricted, no more than one railroad would be permitted to operate; that in such regions, seniority belonged to the oldest railroad now operating there, and that the newcomers, who had encroached unfairly upon its territory, would suspend operations within nine months after being so ordered; that the Executive Board of the National Alliance of Railroads was empowered to decide, at its sole discretion, which regions were to be restricted . . ."
“As far as I can tell - they cannot be convinced to live otherwise.”
And the solution offered by the left is to bring down all other classes to the level of the underclass. That way, there is only ONE class...
Actually TWO. The party leaders and government officials (and the military, of course, which must enforce the party and government diktats) become the upperclass.
HAHAHAHAHA...HOHOHOHO....HEHEHEHE....Stop it, Parsy...you're killing me. You've swallowed the LibDem line completely my friend.
What we're living under now is the most blatant form of crony capitalism yet seen in America.
That is why Wall Street and the mortgage bankers just went under ...
Oh really? And CRA, Dodd, Frank, et al had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
Lurker, who feels bad for Parsy, who hasn't been paying attention.
YESssssssssssss. Let's see. Shall I believe Adam Smith, David Ricard, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, Lionel Robbins, Carl Menger, and Ludwig von Mises about the source of wages? Or shall I believe you and your common sense? Tough choice.
The demand for labor is spread among all levels of society. It does not trickle down from on high by the generous wealthy.
Wrong again, O Great Know-Nothing. The demand for labor trickles down, or up, or sideways, from SAVINGS. Whoever saves rather than consumes contributes to the demand for labor and contributes to the "wages fund" out of which wages are paid. It just so happens that the uberwealthy save more and consume less (as a percentage of their income) than other people. Ergo, the uberwealthy's wealth contributes more to job creation by creating an uberlarge fund out of which wages can be paid. Don't argue with me, twit; argue with Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Menger, and Mises. (And that's why when gov't attempts to "soak the rich," the wages fund dries up, jobs dry up, and unemployment soars.)
A middle class guy needs his car fixed. A poor guy needs his taxes done. A wealthy guy needs his gold golf clubs polished.
Sounds to me as if you merely hate the rich and successful out of a sense of envy. That's psychologically very unhealthy. Anyway, under capitalism and freedom, the middle-class guy is now able to buy a car -- which used to be a toy of rich men exclusively -- because Henry Ford had the freedom to amass a huge fortune at a high rate of profit and chose to reinvest it, over and over again. His uberwealth -- most of which he saved, not consumed -- created the car industry; it hired all the workers in that car industry; it attracted other industries (the tire industry, e.g.,). Competition with other uberwealthy car moguls led to declining prices and increasing quality so that your middle-class guy can now buy a car and afford to get it fixed when necessary. In return for providing the middle class little guy with cheap quality cars, the uberwealthy ask only that they be allowed to purchase -- on their own dime, not the little guy's -- gold golf clubs, yachts, and private helicopters. So what. None of that was forced out of the pockets of the little guy, so what's your problem...envy, perhaps? This is unlike government works and public projects which are paid for directly out of the little guy's pocket and usually have no use for him whatsoever except in the mind and imagination of the bureaucrat advocating the boondoggle. You obviously side with the bureaucrat because he claims that he "means well." I side with middle class guy, whose cheap car (and cheap computer, and cheap cell phone, and cheap iPod, and cheap bread, and cheap sugar, and cheap coffee) were provided to him courtesy of those who were able to save the most and consume the least (relative to their income).
GoodDay, who loves exposing parsy as a fraud and believes that parsy enjoys the exposure.
That’s a good point.
I found myself wondering - where would the upperlass and underclass go to? In what direction?
There will always be differences in people.
There will always be competitive motivated people.
There will always be not-so-motivated and downright lethargic people.
So there will always be an underclass.
True. There are some people who will never raise their sights. If your society has good possibility of upward mobility, however, then the kids of these people can make better choices and often do.
A lot of this has to do with the perception of fairness. That is why I think minimum wages should be a livable wage where there is no excuse for being a lazy, shiftless bum.
I don’t see this as a “new age” thing. To me is just basic common sense and just.
BTW, they totaled my truck from the hail damage.
parsy, who loves his 85 Dodge and will drive it until they pry his cold dead fingers off the steering wheel.
Our society DOES have fantastic possibility for upward mobility.
There ARE kids who choose better.
Sadly - there are many who don’t - despite the many offers extended to them.
“That is why I think minimum wages should be a livable wage where there is no excuse for being a lazy, shiftless bum.”
The lazy shiftless bum doesn’t care what the minimum wage is.
You should see what great lengths people will go to game the system just so they can buy more ingredients to make meth.
Of course, they aren’t all making meth - some just derive more pride and self satisfaction out of cheating the taxpayers (i.e. “The Man”) than they would showing up on time everyday for honest work.
Certainly there is a fine line where it employers should reasonably be expected to reward workers for the time and effort vs. the employers ability to actually run that business and make a profit.
Unfortunately the reality usually means some workers wind up with a “raise” as the employer fires other workers, or shuts down entirely.
Minimum wage is not good when the job is eliminated.
So once again - in the name of “compassion” something is done which actually winds up hurting more people in the end.
SW - who is thinking that must have been SOME HAIL.
Oh yeah, Moore is a little provocateur. I would like to see him do a “documentary” like “Michael Goes to the Hood.” There he can confront some baby daddies who don’t support their kids, some unwed mothers who won’t stop having them and won’t go to school, and he can pick and tease until somebody pops a cap in him. Then he can go to the store that sold the bullets and blame them.
Anyway, I digress. I liked Sicko and thought he made some very good points. same where he was chasing the head of GM around. In Bowling, he was way off base. It is because the country is filled with violent people and nuts that we need guns. Plus, our founding fathers wanted us armed and able to defend ourselves. Kmart wussed out. Heston was pathetic.
He may have had Alzheimers, but if so, why was he president of NRA? The questions Moore asked were easily answerable. By my math, assuming 11,127 murders, and 100 million gun owners, that is like one person in ten thousand being a murderer, so why jump on the other 9,999?
parsy, who is watching Charm School and birds
Biggest hail I have ever seen. I was on front porch talking to a neighbor when it blew in. Had to go inside when hit golf ball size and larger. Felt like a small tornado with the sound and vibrations. But I have only been in one, and there it was obvious when the car started bouncing up and down from side to side. IMHO, you can feel tornados as much as hear them.
parsy, who went chasing one and found it.
“He may have had Alzheimers, but if so, why was he president of NRA?”
LOL!
Good question I’ll hand over to more NRA oriented Freepers.
Will pass the question onto my father-in-law - right up his alley.
Still think it’s sad to pick on a sick old man :(
My best guess would be his ability to draw a favorable impression towards the organization because he is well respected.
I would also like Moore so sit down with my MD brother-in-law and question him as to all the factors that go into his $100,000/year malpractice insurance premium.
I would like him to ask how this contributes to “rising costs” in healthcare.
SW - who watched Fight Club for the first time this weekend.
you chased a tornado and got hit by it?
But that was another time right?
SW - who maybe should put on another pot of coffee.
Like I tell people, if you want to meet the smartest people in the whole wide world, go to a jail near you. Too smart to work for somebody else, too smart to play by the rules, and here the little Einsteins are, dressed in orange and wearing flip flops. As bad as the addicts, who are also the smartest coolest people in the world, even as their hair falls out, they have on sleep on a dog bed, and they don’t know from one day to the next what is going to happen to them.
Conservatives have a big chance here because it is to the point where we can no longer afford this kind of crap.
parsy, who knows of these things.
Ahhh...so you’ve seen it too.
Reminds of a childhood acquaintance of mine.
He grew up in a normal family but was the “black sheep”.
His siblings did not share his criminal tendencies.
He was a serial thief, he graduated to drugs and armed robbery.
Not even prison stopped him as he still ran a “business” from jail.
Someone once asked him, “why”? He was clearly intelligent. He worked hard at his criminal endeavors. He could put all that energy towards better things.
His response was “it’s just too hard to be good.”
I don’t really know what that means considering being bad seems awfully hard too.
SW - who thinks Madoff is a pussycat standing next to DC politicians.
The biggest factor is the commission of malpractice by fellow MDS. Doctors are among the hardest people to sue because they are permitted to screw up, as long as the screw up is within the parameters of acceptable medical standards.
I always cringe when I hear doctors complain about malpractice. There is this misconception that any old lawyer can sue them for any old thing, and the truth is it requires a practice that specializes in that sort of suit and has the funds for the required experts. 99% of all malpractice goes un-sued in my opinion.
And yes, I was in school that night. The tornado was close and while all the sheeple headed for the basement, I headed for my car, turned on the radio, and started trying to find the twister.
About that time, the F4 or F5 winds started bouncing my car around as it passed right thru the parking lot. Then I durn near electrocuted myself by driving up onto a downed power line. The school changed the rules where everybody had to go downstairs after that, but if there had been another, I would have still headed out to find it.
parsy, the fearless
That there is no upper limit on punitive damages is a large factor.
So - in order to cover their buts they admit to ordering tests they may not have ordered otherwise.
I cringe when I hear what my BIL has to fork over for premiums. I cringe when I hear people say it isn’t worth it to go into medicine anymore.
I cringe when I hear of the doctors leaving medicine because of this issue.
In our area there is an extreme shortage of OB/Gyns over this issue.
I also cringed when I heard Obama tell those Arizona students that if they get a medical degree they should go to Africa where they’re needed - as if there isn’t already a shortage in this country.
SW - wondering if Parsy enjoyed near electrocution?
Well I see you’re up and well rested. I’ll start correcting you in a few minutes but I need some caffeine and valium.
parsy, who wonders if that is mixing uppers and downers?
How do you set a price if a doctor doesn’t do a caesarian soon enough and the child is born with brain damage. I’ll probably be suing my first doctor soon for over prescribing pain killers for one of my clients. Double checking the standards of care, and I suspect this guy is way out there.
Plus, there are caps of a sort on punis. Some malpractice is caused by MDs scheduling too many surgeries in one day and rushing thru them. This is inexcusable. My ex was a MD and we used to fight about this a lot. Many MDs are are very OCD and perfectionistic and don’t like to accept responsibility for their screw ups.
If not ordering a test falls within acceptable medical standards there should be nothing to worry about.
parsy, who remembers the Bushism, “Ob/gyns who are not able to practice their love with their patients.”
“What we’re living under now is the most blatant form of crony capitalism yet seen in America.”
First, I’m glad I gave you a good laugh. I like spreading cheer!’
So, you like get it, after all. If we are living under crony capitalism, then do we have more of it or less of it if we go laisse faire?? Think about this, please before answering.
parsy, who owes goodday an answer now.
Less, of course. Remove the source of the cronies power, and crony capitalism goes away.
Lurker thinks this should be elementary, even for Parsy.
L
“The demand for labor trickles down, or up, or sideways, from SAVINGS. Whoever saves rather than consumes contributes to the demand for labor and contributes to the “wages fund” out of which wages are paid.”
?????HuH??? The demand for labor comes from ...the demand for labor. If I go to McDonalds, to buy a hamburger, the money is not coming from my savings. It is coming from my discretionary income. McDonalds is not paying said underpaid burger flipper from the McDonalds Saving Acct., they are paying it from store income
As far as who to believe, why don’t you stop believing for a while and start thinking about some of this.
parsy, who will be back!
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.