FReeper Book Club: Atlas Shrugged, The Sanction of the Victim

It’s Thanksgiving at the Rearden home, and Hank dines in the bosom of his family of moochers and vipers. Hank’s mother’s prayer describes a country where the people lack food and housing. The Reardens have been fortunate, and Mrs. Rearden thinks Hank should toast the American people who have given him so much.

Lillian is concerned that Hank might make a stand at his trial tomorrow. He says he intends to, which prompts remonstrance from his mother. Why can’t he play by the rules, like Orren Boyle? Lillian thinks that concepts like right and wrong are irrelevant, and Hank is conceited for trying to take a stand on principle. The men whom Hank will face at the trial are weak, and their only way of getting rich is to grab the fruits of Hank’s labors. So what? That’s the human condition. Hank should abandon the illusion of his perfection and go along to get along. Nobody is right or wrong; we are all in this together.

Hank has no thought about his going to jail or what it will do to his family. Philip damns him for taking advantage of the national emergency to make money for personal gain. Hank quietly tells Philip that if he opens his mouth again, he will throw him out in the street with nothing but the clothes on his back and the change in his pocket. Philip has been living off Hank’s charity and exhausted his credit long ago. Philip decides he wants to leave – but he needs money to maintain his social position. Hank tells him that money will not come from him. Philip now thinks he needs to stay to help their mother. Hank decides to go to New York. Lillian understands and forbids him to leave, but he leaves anyway.

Hank recalls that the Wet Nurse had failed to turn him in for the Danagger sale and couldn’t explain why. Hank had told him to murder somebody quickly before the reason he didn’t turn informant destroyed his career. Despite this, he now finds the Wet Nurse hanging around the plant and engaging in hero worship.

Dagny had been experiencing one train wreck after another as the rail wore out. Jim said the track would last another year, but that’s not how it worked out. Dagny couldn’t get Rearden Metal, so she had to settle for regular steel instead. Taggart revenues are collapsing.

At the office Dagny and Eddie Willers are working through Thanksgiving as Hank shows up. Hank tells Dagny that she is going to get Rearden Metal, not steel, for the money she has spent and more of it than she paid for. He intends to give Dagny plausible deniability by tangling up the bookkeeping to the point where no auditor could hope to figure it out, except possibly to blame it on Hank. The two raid the illicit bar of the traffic manager and down a pair of brandies to drink to Thanksgiving, the holiday established by productive people to celebrate the success of their work.

The trial of Hank Rearden is not conducted under the Constitution of the United States. It’s an administrative law panel presided over by three judges from the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources with no jury; however, this tribunal, empowered by the directives of Wesley Mouch issued under a state of emergency, has the power to send people to prison. One judge acts as prosecutor.

The observers in the courtroom are not necessarily on the government’s side. Although the Mainstream Media had characterized Hank as an enemy of the people, these same people are there to see the inventor of Rearden Metal. They are not there out of admiration – that emotion is something Americans can no longer feel in their tribulations – but curiosity and defiance.

In the intervening weeks, Danagger Coal had fallen apart after its owner’s disappearance, and Orren Boyle’s steel girders were collapsing in construction projects across the nation and killing people; everyone in the courtroom knows that the media is hiding Boyle’s responsibility.

Hank refuses to offer a defense after the charges are read; in fact, he doesn’t even recognize the right of this so-called court to try him, nor does he recognize his actions as criminal. Hank is complying with the law to the letter; his property may be disposed of without his consent. He does not wish to be a party to this farce. Told that he must defend himself, Hank tells the court that a defense is only possible if there are objective principles that bind him and the judges to the law; in the absence of such principles the court may do as it wishes.

The judge condemns Hank for opposing the public good. Hank tells him that “good” was once a concept determined by moral values, and no one had the right to violate the rights of another. If men may sacrifice Rearden and steal his property because they need it, how does this make them any different from a burglar? At least a burglar doesn’t ask for sanction. The judge asks if Hank holds his interests above those of society. Hank says that question can only arise in a society of cannibals. If people wish to decrease his profits, they should not buy his metal; anything else is the method of the looter. If the judges wish to impose punishment, then impose it. The judge says Hank’s only alternative is to throw himself on the mercy of the court. Hank refuses; he will not do anything to facilitate this farce.

A judge demands that Hank not make it look like he is being railroaded. Realizing his mistake, the judge stops cold, but someone in the audience whistles; the cat is out of the bag. Rearden explains that they are choosing to deal with men by means of compulsion. This court is only possible when the victim permits it to be possible. If the judges wish to levy punishment and seize his property, then let them do it publicly at the point of a gun. Hank makes it clear he is working for his own property and profit; he does not seek the sanction of others for his right to exist, nor does he recognize the good of others as a justification for the seizure of his property. When looters run out of victims, the result is universal devastation. “If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public be damned. I will have no part of it!” The crowd bursts into applause.

A judge now tells Hank that the court wishes to approach him in the spirit of amity, but Hank isn’t having any of that. The judge tries to place the blame on the missing Danagger, but Hank isn’t having any of that either. The judge tries to get him to say he was working for the good of the people, but Hank shoots that one down too. Realizing that the government has badly misplayed its hand, the judges fine Hank five thousand dollars – but suspend the sentence. The crowd applauds Rearden and jeers the judges. The curtain comes down on the farce.

Dagny is elated, Lillian is noncommittal, and the Wet Nurse is sure that Hank has won. Hank explains to him that the thing that makes him sure is a moral premise. The Mainstream Media is silent, and businessmen are fearful, although some think that government controls are desirable.

Hank drops in unannounced at Francisco’s suite at the Wayne-Falkland. Francisco is thrilled to see him but hides the mechanical drawings he is working on. Hank wonders when Francisco is going to finish his talk, and Francisco tells Hank that he finished it brilliantly at his trial but three generations too late. Hank still thinks the world can be saved by fighting the looters, but Francisco tells him to read the transcript of the trial and see if he is practicing his philosophy fully. It’s too soon to finish the talk he and Hank had started at the mill.

Hank wants to know why a man like Francisco is spending his time running after loose women. Francisco asks Hank to check his premises, and he launches into his Sex Speech. Francisco admits that he has been creating a certain impression but has never slept with any of those women. He has been donning camouflage for purposes of his own; he can’t tell Hank what is going on, but he is becoming impatient with the rules he has sworn to observe. There is only one woman Francisco has ever loved, and he hopes he has not lost her.

Hank tells Francisco he is going to sell his metal to the customers of his choice, but Francisco warns him he is merely accepting the position of a criminal for the sake of keeping in place a system that can be kept going only by its victims. Hank says he is going to outlast the system, and he is one of Francisco’s best customers thanks to the work of front men. Francisco is horrified, reminding Hank that he had warned him to stay away from d’Anconia Copper. Francisco swears that Hank is his friend, no matter what he will think in the next few days. And three days later, Hank’s copper goes to the bottom of the Atlantic courtesy of Ragnar Danneskjøld.

This is a moderately long set piece that encapsulates Rand’s philosophy of sexuality in one place. This is a blessing for the reader because her characters’ talk about sex gets tedious rather quickly, so it’s nice to get the lecture over with.

But this speech is worth a second read because it is so definitive. While Rand was no fan of the biblical sexual morality of the Fifties, one suspects she held little regard for the New Morality of the Sixties. Her standards were higher than that, if a bit odd. The Sex Speech shows that those who view Rand as a sexual libertine are wide of the mark.

As far as Rands view of sexuality...
...Call it an evolutionary adaptation, or the way we were created. It serves the purpose...

I gave up on trying to figure out Rands motivation for the scenes and monologues dealing with sex. In my opinion she is off the mark but that doesn't invalidate the novel as a whole.
The book was ten years in the making and who among us have remained static in our opinions over such a span?

The latter may also help explain what Billthedrill points out here...

...a rapid-fire exchange that eschews the normal paragraph-break-per-quote form found in the rest of the novel. It is a curious departure, and I’m not sure quite what to make of it...

Postscript: Mrs. Thunkit and I agree - Sex is the manifestation of Gods wicked sense of humor.

On the banker side of things, it’s hard to see much difference between government and bankers these days since they move back and forth between private and public sectors so freely.

The same goes for elected leaders and lobbyists.

And in a previous chapter, Wesley Mouch made the move between lobbying and regulating.

Rand saw all this corruption coming some 50 years ago.

The threads seems to be getting shorter as the weeks drag on. I think it is a function of the way Rand keeps reiterating the same themes, and we’ve drawn the parallels to current events already. I always hope to find some insight that has been overlooked.....alas.

This morning at mass, the first reading was from Acts of the Apostles, and the disciples were exhorted to sell their belongings, come up with a communal bank account, and give “each according to need”. I gave a mental hiss. No wonder religion is held in such contempt by Rand. Then, on the way out, I promptly donated to the Little Sisters of the Poor, who take care of the elderly and disabled. I applaud their work, so I guess I wouldn’t be welcome in that spoiler-place. But I do detest the idea of “each according to need” as a general way of living....why would anyone bother getting up to go to work if you got what you needed anyway?

I digress from the chapter. I think life would be far more interesting if more people told the Congressional hearings to “stuff it”, since by participating, they are lending credibility to pure political grandstanding. I applauded Hank Rearden, but where are those heroes today?

Francisco’s speech? I agree that it works in a perfect world. And to an extent, you check out people’s spouses to see how well they did. It can be an outward manifestation of their own opinion of themselves. I don’t like Francisco’s implied monasticism if you don’t obtain your ideal.

The threads seems to be getting shorter as the weeks drag on.

I noticed this as well. As long as the salient points are addressed the final result will still be a benefit to any freeper who reads AS in the future.

I always hope to find some insight that has been overlooked.....alas.

Sometimes the story leads us into otherwise unexplored areas apart from the story. One example is this quote that I happened to find while doing research on philosophy -

"don't express your ideas too clearly. most people think little of what they understand, and venerate what they do not. to be valued, things must be difficult: if they can't understand you, people will think more highly of you. ...keep them guessing at your meaning, and don't give them a chance to criticize you. many praise without being able to say why. they venerate anything hidden or mysterious, and they praise it because they heard it praised."
-- balthasar gracian, the art of worldy wisdom
(trans. christopher maurer)

I find in the above a partial answer to the question that I have about the vaporous qualities of the liberal politicians answers. It always bothered me that they never answered a question concretely as I expected them to. Now I understand that this is a lack of understanding on my part. They never will give a satisfactory answer and the more that I try to extract an answer, the farther into the hole I go.

...I promptly donated to the Little Sisters of the Poor, who take care of the elderly and disabled. I applaud their work, so I guess I wouldn’t be welcome in...

Don't be at all critical of this donation. The fact is that _You_ wanted to donate the money. This is entirely compatible with Rands philosophy. If you hold a door open for someone, is it because you are told to do it or because you want to do it? I submit that you donated the money because you like the feeling it gives you, such is Rands definition of selfishness.

Wow, That pretty much explains my outlook on "charity." Rands whole point is compulsory charity, which is no charity at all.

I am short on my replies because I am 1 1/2 chapters behind due to work. I am glad the pace is only one chapter per week. I read AS a few years ago and am following along. The situation in AS with Hank’s family not appreciating him for carrying them as “freeloaders” and many other things in the real world strike me as similar: 1. Other countries who we protect with our military seem to despise us (Europe and others). 2. Needy people who live off tax payer funds seem to blame the rich for their situations and whose taxes actually keep them alive. 3. Progressive politicians who live off the taxes of the producers blame those producers in public to get votes from the others who are also parasites. They blame the producers for the plight of all including drug addicts and crimminals.

Prosperity is not a zero sum game here on earth.

As my wife and I are reading this she has become somewhat irritated that nobody has come to take Dagny away. Other than the fact that she is the main character in the book and it would shorten it tremendously if she were to be taken away by “the Destroyer” :-), why wouldn’t Francisco and crew want to convince her to leave?

A couple of things came to my mind, and I wanted to throw them out and see what the folks say.

1) The fact that her brother is part of the looter crowd might make her hesitant to go even if she were otherwise ready.
2) They believe that her relationship with Hank will make either one hesitant to disappear without the other, so why not pick off the lone wolves instead?
3) I also wonder if it has to do with the railroad not really being a resource constrained business as much as a competency based business. Meaning the looters would more likely feel that they could jump in and run a coal mine, since it’s “just” pulling coal out of the ground. But running a railroad is real work! I could see how the looters might feel that plucking a mine, or an auto manufacturer with assembly lines already running, might be easier than actually running a railroad. So Galt and team figure lure the looters into the businesses they are going to be more interested in plucking for their loot.

Of course, Rand has arguably the strongest character in the book as a woman, and it might simply be that the 3 Amigos figure that she would be the hardest to convince to abandon her work.

I’d be interested if anyone had any thoughts about why the particular pecking order of people disappearing.

Actually, Francisco has had at least once to restrain himself, or at least remind himself of their rules. If you note, and Eddie points out, the disappearances take place seemingly in response to an outside force being applied, in the form of a suddenly increased importance of and dependence on the "abductee". He confides to the nameless track worker that Dagny herself has noticed this, and indeed she barely misses the opportunity to interfere when Ken Danagger, whom she now perceives as the most important man left, is confronted, successfully, by the "Destroyer". She is not yet at that point, and in fact, never will be. But, "further deponent sayeth not," lest I inject a spoiler. Hard not to, since I've succumbed to temptation and am reading ahead. Sorry, but as many times as I have read AS, it is still a thriller to me.

On another note, I have wanted to comment for some time on the occasional seeming contradictions in her characters and speeches. It helps to keep two things in mind: when you see contradictions, check your premises (of course), but more importantly, Rand (and her characters) mean PRECISELY what they say, and are often responding to what their adversaries meant but didn't say.

Guess I'll go read another chapter. May 1 and the promulgation of the Directive is nearly upon us.

Kirk

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDE2MTMxODE5Y2YzMGNlOWExZmJjYmJhYzViMDk0NjA=

“I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading. The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.”

Read the whole thing as this is an excerpt.

Fits rather well with last week’s topic, doesn’t it?

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.