Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 13, 2009 - 01:50pm PT
|
Throughout Atlas Shrugged, many characters agree something is wrong with the world, but they focus on their well being rather than dwell on the problems of the world. The first person to become vocal on the subject is John Galt. John Galt is fed up that the non-productive members of society use laws and guilt to leech off the productive members of society and their hard work. He believes coerced self-sacrifice causes any society to self-destruct because it empowers unproductive people.
John Galt vows to 'change' the world and subsequently the productive class goes on Strike...
The productive members of society refuse to contribute their writing, art, inventions, business skills, research, or other new ideas with the rest of the world because they believe that society hampers them with unnecessary regulations and confiscates their profits they have rightfully earned.
Though it is evident society had been far more prosperous by encouraging and rewarding self-reliance and individual achievement, still John Galt and the strikers must continually fight against the "looters" and "moochers" of society--who attempt play Robin Hood with the wealth and success of others
The "looters" are those who confiscate others' earnings because they are government officials and have the law on their side.
The "moochers" are those who demand others' earnings because they claim to be needy and unable to earn themselves. Although the moochers seem benign, they serve as useful idiots for the "looters" to create more laws to further redistribute the wealth.
The question "Who is John Galt?" is a question often asked in Atlas Shrugged; by answering the question indirectly, Author Ayn Rand argues that self-reliance and individual achievement enable society to survive and prosper. But a society will stagnate when the productive achievers begin to be socially demonized or punished for their accomplishments. A nation that sanctions coerced self-sacrifice only empowers the unproductive and is detrimental to the motivation of the productive class…
GObama!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 01:51pm PT
|
Another religious thread....
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:03pm PT
|
Yes, yes, I know - and Marxism was anti-religion too. As was Nazism. They simply substituted their own belief systems, whether or not they called it religion, and said all the others are wrong or at least inferior. Based on supposedly rational grounds, e.g. dialectical materialism. But their rituals and dogma were all religious in nature.
If it walks like a religion/belief system, and quacks like one...
Randism is no different. A belief system that is supposedly areligious, but which also seeks to replace religion, and which has an intellectual substructure based on non-falsifiable beliefs. It has its acolytes and priesthood, though not under those names - although the John Birch Society might pass for it. Also its dogma and rituals.
Ultimately, they're all founded on beliefs that can't be falsified, whether about deities or human nature/behaviour or both. They all purport to provide the "one true message", and to replace all previous prophets. The clever modern ones pretend not to be religions or cults, but they are.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:11pm PT
|
"Also its dogma and rituals."
Bingo.
I'm tired of pro-free market dogma. While capitalism is a valuable tool for a productive society, it is not the end-all/be-all or silver bullet that its die-hard adherents make it out to be. We do need a certain amount of government regulation in some areas to keep it in check.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:22pm PT
|
We do need a certain amount of government regulation in some areas to keep it in check.
Very true, but we also need to regulate the "moochers" and welfare cases who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves like the rest of us do.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:24pm PT
|
Any absolutist ideology, whether left or right, religious or irreligious, is bound to harm. All ideologies must be tempered with common sense, kindness and empathy. The tough love of Ayn Rand, libertarians and conservatives is just that, tough. When common kindness is subordinated to ideological or religious absolutism disaster follows.
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:29pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^
One of the best posts I've seen regarding these matters.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:32pm PT
|
I think this about the quality of my posts.
HOW DARE YOU!?
yes, I'm avoiding work.
hahahaha
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:42pm PT
|
My education and life philosophy are incomplete... a LOT of ideas expressed in Atlas Shrugged resonated very strongly with me. And yet, there are many cases where society at large would be better served by helping folks in need so they can again become useful members of society, rather than leaving them on a downward spiral.
The tough thing is, how to make a system that can efficiently and effectively decide who is worth helping and who is not? Perhaps the answer is an ugly patchwork with a million one-off solutions, but for my intellectual peace of mind, I'd like to have a simple framework for deciding.
I'm not against being compassionate or empathetic, but I've worked hard enough in my life, doing miserable things to make miserable money, that I struggle to feel compassionate for the street-beggar by my freeway exit who has been there for a decade and always has clean clothes and a beverage in his hand.
edit: "who is worth helping and who is not" is perhaps a poor choice of words. Maybe better to say "who should be helped to increase the productivity of society," but this implies that the goal of society at large is to be productive. The deeper question is: "What should be the goal of a society or civilization?"
Is it to be freely loving and compassionate to all with no conditions? Perhaps returning to life as packs of wild animals is the consequence of this system because of how other folks take advantage of this system. Maybe that's OK if the goal is to just be loving and compassionate. But then again, is it a loving and compassionate society when it breaks down and leaves more children raised in appalling conditions?
I don't think there are easy answers, and some kind of active debate and swinging back and forth based on group inputs is more effective than rigidly following any dogma.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:43pm PT
|
Paul, I agree with you for the most part. It's common sense really, especially in terms of political ideology and systems of governance.
I would also say that Rand had many ideas that ring true for me.
Edit: That's kinda what I was saying above, Nutjob, about 'regulating' the needy. I'm sure you're aware of the saying about giving a man a fish or showing him how to fish. There's a lot of truth in that.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:48pm PT
|
The problem with Atlas Shrugged is not the underlying idea, it's the tedious and self-important style in which it is written. Seriously, that book sux.
Fountainhead (racy sex) and We the Living (her first book, which is a raw account of Russia under the relatively new communist regime) are better, but still mediocre at best by any objective standard of literature.
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:55pm PT
|
scaredtodeath, I must admit to being with you on the self-important style; I quit the book after 800+ pages the first time when I hit "the speech". A few years later I had to start from the beginning to remember it, and pushed through with less issues. I heard that the publishers wanted to chop out that section, and she refused to budge at all on that part. Take it all or don't take it.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:12pm PT
|
Right wing nut jobs are always good for a laugh.
Obama is a socialist, haha! I love how they can take someone a little left of center and paint them as a communist to justify their own selfishness, brainwashing, and fear mongering.
What we need of course is balance. Communism/socialism sucks, you need to be rewarded for your efforts or no one makes an effort. Pure capitalism sucks, you would eventually have 1 giant monopoly running everything and making huge profits while 99.9% of people suffer.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:27pm PT
|
"the "looters" and "moochers" of society--who attempt play Robin Hood with the wealth and success of others"
The question is who are the looters and moochers, and who created wealth and achieved success?
In Ayn Rand's world, is Madoff and his type creaters of real wealth, or looters and moochers?
The Wall Street Journal web site just ran an opinion piece on Atlas Shrugged on its front page. 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Yearshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It's written by a John Galt worshipping Obama-hater.
This had me questioning whether he lived in the same universe as the rest of us:
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."
This completely ignores the fact that the bankers were coming to the Government asking for handouts to save their failing businesses. Business which were failing due to their short-sightedness and incompetence.
These people don't want to have to pay any taxes or be subject to any rules. But when they are failing they expect a government to be there to give them free handouts using funds from the "little people."
Is this the John Galt philosophy? What would the real Any Rand have to say about this?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:32pm PT
|
"Pure capitalism sucks, you would eventually have 1 giant monopoly running everything and making huge profits while 99.9% of people suffer."
What kind of goofball makes statements like this.
Capitalism ends up with "1 giant monopoly?"
What the hell does he think Communism/Socialism is all about?
Capitalism by definition is all about "Competition."
I think he is referring to pure laissez faire polices, not pure capitalism.
It is a paradox. Capitalists want to make money and competition is their worst enemy. Every capitalist eliminates competition as much as he can, by buying out or partnering with competitors. Without government regulation preventing this, you end up with monopolies and cartels.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:38pm PT
|
Skipt I just couldn't believe that the government was being shown as "seizing" a percentage of their businesses when they needed the government to bail them out. Any private company coming and would have demanded much more.
If the government was going to help it should have done so only if there was no other option (including just letting them fail, which may have been best in the long run.) And then it should have received more then it did. After things stablized, the government's stake could be auctioned off and the proceeds applied towards the debt incurred by the government in effecting the bailout. (The government would still only receive pennies on the dollar.)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:43pm PT
|
"While pure "laissez faire" capitalism has never been seen in the world I think it safe to say the "monopolies" exist to a great extent in many parts of the world already.
Mostly in those countries that practice government intervention."
Yes, everyone in charge of running a business (whether a private enterprise or government "business") would prefer not to have competition. This is true everywhere. In a "pure" communist country, everything is just a government monopoly by definition. In capitalist countries, businesses try to build monopolies on their own.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:47pm PT
|
Communism is the exploitation of man by man, while capitalism is exactly the reverse.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:54pm PT
|
Ghost,
What do you mean by this...
"Communism is the exploitation of man by man, while capitalism is exactly the reverse."
Curious,
thx,
M
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:08pm PT
|
Hi Munge
Just my way of suggesting that those (of whatever political/economic/religious bent) who shout really loudly about how perfect their system is and how evil the other system is should maybe look in the mirror.
I can never decide whether these "You're wrong." "No, you're wrong." "Oh yeah? Well you're an as#@&%e!" "NO! It's you that's an as#@&%e" threads are really funny or really obnoxious.
Done any good munge climbing lately?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!