Replies

Jim Taggart is the weak scion to a great empire. He is gullible, arrogant, and cowardly, the dissipated heir to a fortune made by a man of steel. In many ways, he represents inherited wealth, the beneficiary of a set of values that he shames with his lassitude. A modern example would be the Kennedys, although their wealth was ill-gotten from the beginning.

Jim also represents the mediocrity that Galt & Co. shun. Left to his own devices, Jim Taggart could not make the railroad run, any more than the mediocrats in other industries can keep them working. Yet they reject the strict ethic that breeds excellence, in favor of a more inclusive, "democratic," egalitarian philosophy that ignores merit. It is that "altruism" that Rand considered the greatest threat to mankind's ultimate success. And it is a theme that will be repeated ad infinitum throughout the book.

This is my first reading of the book and I ran out to B&N yesterday to get a copy for this book club. She does such a great job of creating the atmosphere of indifference that I have been as frustrated while reading the book as I have been trying to have a discussion with liberals. I'd especially like to pinch Jim Taggart's head off, as he reminds me of so many civil servants or union members or corporate bureaucrats I've had to deal with.

It is that "altruism" that Rand considered the greatest threat to mankind's ultimate success. And it is a theme that will be repeated ad infinitum throughout the book.

It's one of those 'virtues' that can be very self-serving for the doer and actually harmful for the receiver, depending on the intent. Libs have carried it to the extreme by confiscating money from others to use it to build their own egos. BTW, she's in excellent company. Thoreau didn't look kindly on philanthropy either, even back in the 1800's when it wasn't carried to an extreme (from Walden):
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.

Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it.

The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy.

A modern example would be the Kennedys, although their wealth was ill-gotten from the beginning.

James Taggart was endeavoring to run Taggart Transcontinental as a zero sum game.

The parallel to the Kennedy's is that they want to run the country that way, except, of course, for them.

In the case of Taggart, if one desires to run their business to simply break even, then that's their prerogative and they only hurt themselves.

On the other hand, the Kennedy's (and the liberals in general) want to run the country that way at the cost of the taxpayer.

Jim Taggart is the weak scion to a great empire. He is gullible, arrogant, and cowardly...

You forgot STUPID! To me that is the word most descriptive of Taggart!

Why does it not surprise me that you should show up on this thread old buddy?