Ping! The thread is up.
I’ll be spending most of Saturday (7/18) out of contact, so Billthedrill will be monitoring this thread for most of the day.
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
Part III, Chapter I: Atlantis
Part III, Chapter II: The Utopia of Greed
Part III, Chapter III: Anti-Greed
Part III, Chapter IV: Anti-Life
Part III, Chapter V: Their Brothers’ Keepers
Part III, Chapter VI: The Concerto of Deliverance
No need to read the book, we are living it!
I read Atlas Shrugged very nearly a year ago before the SHTF to pass the time in airports and related “long wait” situations. At the time the story had a strangely looming quality to it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Now we’re all living it, up close and personal.
Great job, guys.
This is where the race to be not the most needy but rather the biggest victim really plays out in today's world.To be a part of the "no one in particular" you must first show that you have somehow suffered in some aspect of your life. The concept that "life's tough, wear a cup" has been replaced by the promise of "justice" from the ruling class for your victimhood. And the validity of your victimhood is at the sole discretion (and whim) of that same ruling class.
bookmark
“Had you been listening to the radio when all this happened, would you have listened to the entire speech, or would you have tuned out at some point?”
(flamesuit *on*)
Giant pothole indeed.
I’ve read the entire book except for this chapter. It is honestly so dry, boring, and downright mind-numbing I have never been able to finish it.
She is possibly the worst ‘great’ writer I have ever encountered. Her ideas have a great impact on me, but as a writer, her prose is horrible. I’ve never read less engaging writing, even in dry scientific journals, than this chapter.
No one talks this way. I doubt any speech ever given could be so dull, even some of the commencement speeches I’ve witnessed. I would have shut the radio off, and probably been the worse for it (as perhaps I am worse for never having finished this chapter).
* ”You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.”
I get the sense that the primary determining factor here is the individual’s volition in the act. If I am to be merciful because the gubment tells me to, that is bad. Of course, I can choose to be merciful if I wish (as I’ve seen discussed several times on the various threads), but imposed mercy is wrong.
Probably the biggest example of this for me was the clear self-denial of Galt and D’Anconia toward Dagny. They chose to deny themselves for a higher cause and did it of their own volition.
“Sacrifice wealth for need”? - More like sacrificing someone else’s wealth for my need.
To your question, I didn’t see any wiggle room for Rand. She was pretty black and white on this from my point of view.
”...Walk into any college classroom and you will hear your professors teaching your children that man can be certain of nothing...”
I’ll take environmentalism for $1000, Alex. :-)
It blows me away the level of pseudo-science associated with environmentalism. And it goes more to your point (and Reagan’s) than Rand. How can a supposed “scientist” be so darn certain over something that has such a short measurable timeline and such a standard deviation in the data. It would be a huge improvement if somebody in the “movement” would declare that nothing is certain.
I get that environmentalism is all about control, but one would expect, in a rational world, that the science would lead to the conclusion and not the other way around. ( I guess Rand would tell me to examine my premise! ) It’s so bad that “global warming” has morphed into “climate change”. Fortunately, there are rational people who recognize this for what it is. Unfortunately, none of those seem to be in charge right now.
Somehow, I knew you would ask this question and I've been trying to come up with an answer for weeks.
I must say, first off, that I would have turned the speech off as, IMHO, it would have been WAY over the head of 99.9% of the population that was listening. (NOTE: I read this chapter twice and was absolutely overwhelmed trying to figure out HOW on Gods green earth what he said related to why things were going to he*l in a handbasket). I can understand the need to explain A is A and so on, however, most people would want to know, in laymans terms, why what was happening was happening. Something along the lines of:
"This is John Galt speaking: We, the producers, who provided the economic engines, the jobs, the innovation, the thinking, have gone on strike and are now actively allowing collectivists, those who consider "the common good" over the importance of the individual, to completely have their way. This is our way of proving to you, the listening public, the "collectivist" form of government, from each according to his ability to each according to their need, simply does not work. Where are the jobs offered by those collectivists in charge? Where is the incentive to do your best, where is the incentive to work for you and your family if it's only going to be taken away to be GIVEN to someone else because they need it more than you but aren't willing to lift a finger to earn it.
Many of you listening have actively supported this concept at OUR expense. You supported taking our facilities in the interest of the common good, you advocated confiscation of our profits to be redistributed to people too lazy or uninterested in fending for themselves, for the common good.
The immense profits of which you complained were used to build more plants, to provide more jobs, to increase economic activity, to allow the INDIVIDUAL to excel to his or her greatest level. We provided jobs at a wage (value) and expected a return of equal value (labor) to everyones benefit. That was taken from us. Our value to the nation was reduced to nothing more than a giant pot to be used for distribution to those who had no value to offer, yet who expected more and more as a reward for their inability to offer anything in return. Have we, as INDIVIDUALS, made money? The answer is yes, but we paid ourselves as a reflection of our value the same as any employee. We provided jobs to those that wanted to work, we provided money to those willing to earn it and we provided profits to be used to rebuild train tracks, to rebuild steel furnaces, to rebuild and continue to move forward with as little interruption as possible.
You wanted that taken. We are now on strike, to return when a nation of INDIVIDUALS, willing to work to support THEMSELVES instead of others, who develop the mindset of those who built this country and return to the moral codes that originally took hold when this nation was started." (THEN go into a description of moral codes etc., but at least the public would have understood why they did what they did and would have, hopefully, made the connection)
At last in my case, THAT would have made me stick around for the entire broadcast.
Just my 2 cents..
How does this address compare to President Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech?
At nearly 30 minutes, it is a lot to digest. I wonder how many people sit through the whole 30 minutes. I would imagine that conservatives and libertarians will, but liberals will stop listening very quickly.
In that context, I would imagine that the producers in AS would be more willing to listen to Galt's speech where the moochers would turn it off very quickly.
Bump for later!
I shall miss coming home on Saturdays to no new insights once Atlas has been fully dissected.
Perhaps you and Bill may consider other collaborations.
Augustine of Hippo, a converted Gnostic
Augustine was a Manichean.
This is John Galt Speaking Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOt6rUkU5xY
This is John Galt Speaking Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luKo_w-EVmU
This is John Galt Speaking Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7T0B1OUAFA
This is ....Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfgFd9MJYg8
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ArrEYig5SI
For more visit
http://www.youtube.com/user/XCowboy2
Currently, more apt.
This reminds me of discussions I've had, where I've been accused of "seeing the world in black and white."
My response has been "All questions can be answered either yes or no, so, the world is definitely black and white. The so-called "gray area" is merely a place where no decision has been made.
People find it somewhat disconcerting when I lay it out like that for them.
When it comes to Atheism and Rand, she sees no rational reason to believe in God.
I try to turn that around and ask what the rational for not believing in God is? As I have on my home page "Lack of evidence that God exists is not proof He does not."
Pure Randian Objectivism is in conflict with our American Constitutional system, and perhaps with any workable society. We have, built into the system, a certain amount of socialism and a certain amount of force. Our Constitution and system of laws are, in effect, an agreement we have with our government permitting it to force us to do certain things thought to be good (at least when they were enacted), and in return we are presumed to be the beneficiaries of those good acts.
And they are not a matter of pure volition. They are inherent upon us. They can be changed, but the process is not supposed to be easy.
Religion is another matter but not an entirely separate one in the American system. Here it seems the founding fathers tried their best to incorporate the best of classic Judeo-Christian principles into the founding documents, that we might carry forward with a sense of order in the absence of a moral guide such as a state religion.
The trick is and always will be maintaining the balance between individual freedom and collective good. Today we see the consequences of a steady drift away from that balance. Our system is supposed to prevent such a drift, but complacence has allowed a determined run of usurpers to pull us to a tipping point nonetheless.
Rand, in this work, displays either a complete lack of understanding, or no regard for, our system and the sort of government control and collectivism that is designed into it. I don't know how the answer would affect my perception of it, but the question has been on my mind since near the middle of the book, did she abhor our system or just not understand how it is supposed to work?