Posted on 06/06/2009 7:23:17 AM PDT by Publius
Ping! The thread is up.
Prior threads:
FReeper Book Club: Introduction to Atlas Shrugged
Part I, Chapter I: The Theme
Part I, Chapter II: The Chain
Part I, Chapter III: The Top and the Bottom
Part I, Chapter IV: The Immovable Movers
Part I, Chapter V: The Climax of the d’Anconias
Part I, Chapter VI: The Non-Commercial
Part I, Chapter VII: The Exploiters and the Exploited
Part I, Chapter VIII: The John Galt Line
Part I, Chapter IX: The Sacred and the Profane
Part I, Chapter X: Wyatt’s Torch
Part II, Chapter I: The Man Who Belonged on Earth
Part II, Chapter II: The Aristocracy of Pull
Part II, Chapter III: White Blackmail
Part II, Chapter IV: The Sanction of the Victim
Part II, Chapter V: Account Overdrawn
Part II, Chapter VI: Miracle Metal
Part II, Chapter VII: The Moratorium on Brains
Part II, Chapter VIII: By Our Love
Part II, Chapter IX: The Face Without Pain or Fear or Guilt
Part II, Chapter X: The Sign of the Dollar
A note to our members. Billthedrill and I are in the process of marrying up our separate contributions, which we intend to publish. We have an agent, and he is shopping our work around to some publishers. We are grateful to our fellow FReepers for taking on the peer review function and keeping us on our toes. FReepers rock!
Thanks for this ongoing thread, I have tried to read Atlas at least 3 times and could not get thru it. This thread helps.
That’s awesome news! Best of luck to you both! :D
I believe Ayn had no problem with charity. What she did have a problem with, though, were those who expected charity, without “even the coin of thanks.”
In Ayn’s view, charity is fine, as long as it is done willingly. Rand did not believe government should be in the business of collecting money for charity..that it was not the proper purview of government.
mark
Thank you for the lucid, succinct explanation of the true function of Wall Street.
Congrats, guys! You both deserve it. You guys can write five coherent pages while I’m still standing around going “Well I, um, uh...”
This is going to pop up again in 3 weeks when we examine the very first event in that chapter. I expect you to be the first to address a discussion topic aimed at dissecting that event.
Ah, drat, I got ahead of myself and am now thrust into the topic breach...
Anyway, I’ll do my best. ;)
Hmm, you two are going to do a “Cliff Notes meets study guide” of Atlas Shrugged are you?
Should be a great project and good luck to both of you.
“We’ve seen Rand’s ideal Objectivist society operating in Galt’s Gulch. How well would it work in the real world?”
The problem with Objectivitism in regards to humanity is human emotion and frailty. Leaving aside the atheism of Ms. Rand, Objectivism cannot work in the real world.
Rand appears to assume that people can be raised to be objective in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Humans are fallible and venal along with some being outright evil.
No matter how objective one would like to be, emotion gets in the way.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand does an excellent job of portraying just how much government can screw up business and screw up a country.
Unfortunately, she also shows her limitations when it comes to people and emotion.
I expect this chapters thread may be longer than most others because there is so many details to discuss!
I'll comment on your paragraph heading "Rand and Technology" with this post.
I have had discussions with others about 'Galts Gulch' and what it really symbolized and the one thing that I feel needs to be clarified is that the Gulch is not a 60's or 70's era 'back to the land' movement. I don't know that Rand was ever given the opportunity to explain this detail, the movement starting after the publication of Atlas Shrugged. I remember the era and the general feeling that technology was creating more problems than it was solving and that if somehow people could be convinced to shun technological advances, 'things' would get better. The more vague the description of the problem, the more convincing the argument to shun technology.
The looters are doing the same with Directive 10-289, hoping to stop any changes created by new inventions, hoping to secure their positions of power.
It's interesting to read about the Luddite movement and the consequences. A Luddite couldn't exist in Galts world ( and certainly not the Gulch! ) other than perhaps as a subsistence farmer. At this point we can ask ourselves who are most like the Luddites? The moochers are stopping the the motor of the world with their directive (tossing their shoe into the machine). They have no choice because they cannot produce, they have painted themselves into a corner. The Gulchers are embracing technology and making it work for them. They are only limiting their efforts to prevent their product from being taken and used against them.
Rands take on technology was that it should be used when appropriate for the benefit of the individual. When used collectively ( as in the camouflage of the valley ) the use of the technology is appropriate and I believe the expense and rewards would have been borne the same as our founding Fathers had intended for our national defense.
“But she is astonished that Mulligan is charging John twenty-five cents to rent his car; she quickly learns that the word “give” is banned in the valley.’
That’s why I can’t stand this philosophy/book. The atheism! You’re politically incorrect if you “give” someone a ride.
In the science fiction of Robert Heinlein, people actually pay others to use their air once an emergency situation is stabilized. That hardly qualifies as atheism.
I think this is exactly the problem today. Philanthropic societies were created by those "with' to help those without. It was understood that there was a benefactor-beneficiary relationship. If you found yourself without - in deep need - you went with your hat in your hand - a humbling event - and requested aid.
I think this attitude was best portrayed in the movie "Cinderella Man" where the lead - with nowhere else to turn - finally went to get "relief". Now granted it was govt. relief, but his attitude was one of humility - not expectation.
Today the attitude is exactly reversed. There seems to be a righteous expectation of the handout. Instead of humbly going down for relief, we now hear only complaints when "my check" is late.
I think a return to more localized charity is the only solution to our broken system. The abolition of income tax and the welfare state would create a booming business environment. The resulting wealth would then be available to help those truly in need - at the local level. With the end of the welfare state, local charity would then manage/evaluate true need - on an individual basis - for those who humbly submit to the scrutiny of the benefactor.
Amity Shales had a column out last week that if I recall what she wrote correctly she she said the Atlas Shrugged sold 200,000 copies in 2008. I geuss this book might serve as the anti-Obama of literature.
It’s one thing to help those who cannot help themselves; it’s another to help those who will not help themselves. I have a big problem with the latter, and suspect Rand did as well.
I also agree that charity should not be compulsory.
“That hardly qualifies as atheism. “
I think hard nosed unwillingness to give a person some air is a fruit of atheism. It’s like a symptom.
I made some extra banana bread today. I had a lot of bad bananas. I’m giving it away. I’m not charging anybody.
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.