Hardly. Unions PREVENT businesses from hiring replacements and work to organize boycotts of those businesses' products while strikes are ongoing. I wonder if you consider yourself a murderer because you don't do all you can send food and medicine to the Sudan.
ML/NJ
“Unions PREVENT businesses from hiring replacements and work to organize boycotts of those businesses’ products while strikes are ongoing.”
They use force, which is different. But not in result. The book clearly presents Galt as successful in executing his plan to wreck the U.S. and replace it with a libertarian Utopia. Just because he does it through the power of persuasion instead of the power of coercion does not mean he didn’t do it. Most importantly, this was not done by sitting back, and that’s all I was saying.
“I wonder if you consider yourself a murderer because you don’t do all you can send food and medicine to the Sudan.”
That’s not the same thing, and I think you know it. But just for argument’s sake, I would consider anyone who had successfully convinced everyone in the world to deny the importation of food as having starved the Sudan.
“That’s not the same thing”
By which I mean to say that the crisis in the Sudan started by itself—or, in any case, wasn’t started by me—whereas the one in “Atlas Shrugged” is caused by Galt. Not that things were fine before he showed up. But they got markedly worse during his strike.
We’re not dealing with the inevitable decay of collectivism, here. We’re dealing with Galt’s “revolutionary vanguard” deliberately accelerating the decay.