FReeper Book Club: Atlas Shrugged, The Climax of the d'Anconias

A Publius Essay | 14 February 2009 | Publius

[gracie1]

What would John Galt say?

That would make a good tag line or bumper sticker!

[CottonBall]

Rush has enough money to buy NZ and ship all the inhabitants to Australia.

LOL!

What's the draw to Brazil?

[CottonBall]

The left....despite what they claim they believe are actually elitists..

The basic concept liberals believe is that people are stupid. They need handouts, government intervention, and can't handle life on their own. When confronted with someone that isn't in that category, they have somehow cheated to get there (it's never because of their own work ethic or perseverence).

I've been pointing out this very thing to libs lately. Mainly because I'm sick of talking of any of them. So I decided I wouldn't play their game by arguing with them, but point out their underlying assumption behind their ideology. All deny it, of course. But cannot argue that their philosophy in many areas certainly sound as if they think people are inept. They really don't know what to do at that point ;)

[CottonBall]

We are emphasizing that self-esteem has to be earned through hard work. It is ok if they work really hard at something and fail. We still praise the effort. That is life. Sometimes you work really hard at work, and you don’t get the promotion, you still need to take pride in the fact that you did your best. But I can be pretty cutting when I know they did a half-a$$ed job to begin with. No points for showing up. I’m wondering if my children are going to need therapy when they grow up......

Not at all. The kids that got something for nothing will need the therapy. Yours will be just fine.

[CottonBall]

Even the Great One screwed up...1) Amnesty

Well, he did think it would be the last amnesty plus border enforcement would take place after. And he did admit later that it was a mistake. The latter I appreciate, even though Bush didn't learn from this. Learning from the mistakes of others is a good trait. Close to learning from your own mistakes, which the GOP isn't doing either.

[CottonBall]

Francisco: “The man without a purpose.” Francisco: “The code of competence is the only system of morality that’s on a gold standard.”

The more I read this book, the more one-sided the characters seem. The 'good' guys are certainly competent w/r career, but seem really stunted emotionally. Is this on purpose or just they way she writes? It'll be hard for me to even warm up to John Galt if he is driven to work, but can't take the time for a relationship of some sorts. Speaking of which, Francisco disappearing for years and then getting together with Dagney without a word of explanation and expecting things to be the same is a pretty arrogant thing to do. Sadly, I'm just not liking these characters much. On the other hand, I like the other characters even less, so in comparison, I guess it all works out.

[Explorer89]

#1 - Jim seems to think of “virtue” and profitability as being mutually exclusive

My problem with Jim is that he professes that virtue and profitability are mutually exclusive, and really tries to convince himself that he isn't interested in profit. He is completely lying to himself. He loves the lavish lifestyle (as we see later).

If greed was not his motive, then he would have run his Mexican line anywhere, it did not have to be to the D'Anconia mines. He thought that Franscisco had the magic touch, or that at least Francisco did his due diligence, so Jim expected that rail line to make money! Oh, it was for the good of the Mexican people "who never had a chance".

If Jim was not interested in making money, he would have never invested in those mines at all. And he would not have cared when they collapsed.

[Taxman]

The Democrats have won the class warfare argument. They have managed to convince a sufficient number of voters, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the Democrats are the party of the “little people.” and that they will look out for their welfare. For some reason, Democrat voters believe that it is OK for the governemnt to steal money FRom the “wich, wascally wepublicans” and give to the poor.

And, therein lies our problem. There is no demonstrable indication that the Great Society worked. Yet, Democrats keep on pounding the theme, and they keep getting elected, and they keep expanding the welfare state.

Tax, tax, tax. Spend, spend, spend. Elect, elect, elect.

The Republicans have never developed an effective counter-argument, and by trying to become “Democrat Light” (not tax QUITE as much, not spend QUITE as much, advocate a smaller welfare state, etc., etc.), they have effectively emasculated themselves.

One would think that by now, Republicans would recognize the error of their ways, make their case, run as Conservatives and be proud to be opposed to the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist agenda.

Maybe this past electoral cycle will become a permanent eye-opener for them: There cannot be two Democrat parties! If the Democrats are LIEberal, then the Republicans must be conservative — “Democrat LIght” will not win elections.

That is what AS is all about, IMHO.

[Tired of Taxes]

I understand your point of view on this one scene for this one chapter. There will be more on this topic in later chapters... I see you haven’t finished reading the book yet, so I don’t want to spoil anything. This was my first time reading it, too, and I pushed myself to finish reading the whole book.

[Tired of Taxes]

After reading your post, I decided to watch the Wallace interview. I enjoyed it and share your opinion of it. Yes, timeless. And frighteningly prophetic. She says we’re headed to disaster, and she is right.

But, her “philosophy” on (specifically) relations between men and women, as it is put forth in AS, is not timeless, imho. What I find interesting is that Wallace doesn’t question her about it. Maybe he doesn’t bother because her viewpoint (on that one topic) is typical for that time period. More in later chapters...

[Squantos]

http://librivox.org/anthem-by-ayn-rand/

Free audio book ........Anthem !

[whodathunkit]

But, her “philosophy” on (specifically) relations between men and women, as it is put forth in AS, is not timeless, imho

Yes, I agree with your take on this.

The answers that she gave during the interview were intended to inform those interested in her particular philosophy.

In contrast...

Some situations in the book were included, I believe, to make her book more readable. A dissertation on Objectivism would have been rather dry reading. Not being an expert on Ayn Rand, I think that she understood that writing fiction was an effective way to explain her philosophy to the masses.

I discussed this earlier in another post. I decided that I was taking AS too literally because of my expectations. Since then I have decided to read for pleasure and not get caught up in the details. After all, Rand must have come to a similar decision when she decided to write fiction. She does a credible job translating her philosophy based on 'A is A' into the 'A is ?' of her intended readership.

[Publius]

Ping to Chapter 5.

[Indy Pendance]

Bump for reading later.

[21stCenturion]

...

[woodnboats]

Read it the first time when I was 14 (1957). Don’t think it hurt me much. ‘Course I AM a free-market, constitution-thumping libertarian now, so maybe I’m wrong.

Kirk

[TASMANIANRED]

Brazil despite some problems with poverty in certain segments and the crime that goes with it, is largely in the place that the US was 100 years ago.

Largely undeveloped with tremendous natural resources completely untapped.

They have a market economy with huge oil reserves . They haven’t gotten to the point of punishing achievement yet.

[CottonBall]

They haven’t gotten to the point of punishing achievement yet.

IMO, that's the most important thing. Having natural resources is meaningless without it.

Looks like she has great potential. While we're on the downward slide. ;(

[Real Cynic No More]

It is so important for informed people to read Atlas Shrugged now, because we are seeing the re-birth of extreme Socialism like nobody could ever imagine. Ayn Rand was a prophet ahead of her time. The government is killing the economic engine by removing incentives. I'm so troubled by it. While the rest of the world is beginning to recognize that socialism doesn't work, we're reinventing it. And why? Because our schools either aren't teaching history or those in authority learned nothing from it.

Those of you with Kindles from Amazon can get it

[new cruelty]

3. ”The government of the People’s State of Mexico has issued a proclamation ... asking the people to be patient and put up with hardships just a little longer ... Now the planners are asking their people not to blame the government, but to blame the depravity of the rich...” Are there already echoes of this in today’s headlines?

Manhunt: Accused Financier Scammer Stanford Missing. Authorities say Investor Losses Could Rival Madoff Scandal

Texas financier R. Allen Stanford is accused of cheating 50,000 customers out of $8 billion dollars but despite raids Tuesday of his financial empire in Houston, Memphis, and Tupelo, Miss., federal authorities say they do not know the current whereabouts of the CEO.

This does not directly address your question, but it does mirror events in the book.