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.
“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.
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.
We’ve seen Rand’s ideal Objectivist society operating in Galt’s Gulch. How well would it work in the real world?
This wouldn't work for the same reason Communism doesn't work. And for the same reason that there will never be "Peace on Earth". 99% of people may go along with the premise, but there will always be one person, one dictator, one crazy SOB that doesn't want to follow the rules.
In the case of Galt's Gulch, if you don't follow the rules, you essentially get left on the side of the road to starve. That is a good thing, I think.
Another problem is that these people are all 3-sigma on the bell-curve. What happens when you get the WHOLE bell-curve? I'm a fairly bright girl (I like to think), but I don't think I'd be able to just instinctively know how to fish (the novelist on the dock) or how to run a cafeteria, or how to even make the perfect burger. I make a decent burger.....but because I only make ok-ish food, does that make me a slacker? Every darned thing that these people do, they do well. That strikes me as JUST a bit ludicrous. Usually people have their one or two gifts. Every once in a while, you come across someone that seems to be able to do everything, but they are rare.
Rand seems to imply that ANYTHING you do should be done to perfection.
Everyone seems to find Galt pleasant. He makes my teeth hurt. He's way to sanctimonious for my taste. This is where I get annoyed with Dagny, as well. Hello? Paging Hank Rearden? Hank Rearden to the courtesy phone......
I'm a way bigger Hank Rearden fan.
Oh, congrats on the potential book deal. You and Bill are deserving of hero-worship. I promise to buy it when it gets published! (publiushed?)
I don't think so. It seems compatible with my definition, at least, where it is not taking from one at gunpoint and appropriating it (not giving, a thing which is freely done) to another. She might have chosen a better word than "give", but she had no doubt seen plenty of usage in her Soviet Russia upbringing similar to the way it and the companion "ask" have been so famously used by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and so many others of the political class.
* We’ve seen Rand’s ideal Objectivist society operating in Galt’s Gulch. How well would it work in the real world?
It does seem to be carried to an extreme in the gulch, there's no doubt about that. In any functional society there will always be some measure of forced behavior and (dare I say) socialism. Here, our constitution is the agreement of the collective creating a government and spelling out those things we expect it to do, and in essence those are things we expect it will force us to do. Of, by, and for the people, after all.
* Dr. Hendricks, one of America’s best surgeons, left the profession because the government nationalized the health care system. Is there a cautionary tale here?
I have no doubts. I don't know how it is in most places, but in my town the medical community circled their wagons long ago and developed a general business model that maximizes their personal financial benefit. Even though the area's major medical center is a "not for profit" enterprise operated by the Sisters of Saint Joseph, the professionals, doctors and nurses, are among the most financially successful in the nation. I imagine a good number of them would not take kindly any efforts to limit that.
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=60289&catid=181
btw, I loved this chapter. Loved, loved, loved it. After spending so much time reading and guessing about what was going on, it was the reward. It was worth it.
I am troubled by this metaphor. Gravitationally, would be a better fit. Gyroscopically would better describe a rudderless ship. The allusion that the ballast of debt to keep the fiscal ship upright is good, in that, without the debt, there is little to keep the ship in service except the need to service the debt. Gyroscopically would imply an inability to get to the destination.
The ownership of a house, forces one to pay the mortgage and upkeep on it. Without that assumption of debt, people would pickup and move on.
Unfortunately, I see the government removing the ownership of property and distributing it on a temporary and arbitrary basis to favored constituencies. The government will assume the debt and convert it to an asset it bestows, removing the ballast from the people, leaving them to flounder at the whim of government.
Apropos of nothing...
Recently, I got in a discussion with a good friend of mine over the cost of drugs. The end of the conversation reminded me of Francisco’s speech and the woman who “felt that Francisco was wrong.”
The friend of mine, who is a staunch Republican, got one of those emails detailing the cost of ingredients in prescription drugs. It was one of those emails slamming big pharmacy for charging hundreds of dollars for a drug that cost pennies to manufacture.
I pointed out the drug in question very likely cost the upward of a billion dollars to bring to market. That cost has to be made up at somehow. I also pointed out the limited window that drug companies have in order to recoup R&D costs.
Anyway, bottom line is that she let her “feelings” get in the way of facts and couldn’t agree with the points I made.
I’ve come to the conclusion that “I think, therefore I am” has been supplanted by “I feel, therefore you are wrong.”
Thank you once again for this thread.
Late to the party again. Maybe someone else has already commented about this but I am impelled to comment before reading further.
Your statement about the dollar is simply not correct. The Coinage Act of 1792 set out to codify what a US Dollar would be. People then obviously knew what a dollar was as the word is used twice in the Constitution (just as people knew what a year was). It was one of those Spanish silver coins. So the Coinage Act had the US collect a reasonable sample of these dollars and then determine the average content of fine silver in a single dollar. This turned out to be 371.25 grains and this became the definition of a US Dollar. So far as I know this definition has never changed. (Federal Reserve Notes are merely denominated in dollars; and quantities of gold were eagles, not dollars.) The single best review of this, IMHO, is Vieira's Pieces of Eight. The link takes you to the 1984 edition which was a single volume. Dr. Vieira has since expanded his work to two volumes, but I have not seen the expanded edition.
ML/NJ