"Who is John Galt?"

[skraps]

I think that Jud swiped that quote from a book review on Rand, I swear I've ran across that quote before.

It was made by John Rogers and was parroted back by Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist.
I'm not saying that Rand's ideas should be held as gospel, nor that they would solve the worlds problems. However --in my opinion -- to state that they are childish fantasy is narrow minded and dismissive and avoids the fact that there may be morsels of truth in them.

What an interesting point! -- then again, I might just re-read The Genealogy of Morals or Ecce Homo. Or even Socrates, who described the exact phenomenon you do.

True. As you pointed out, there are works out there that would likely be held as more scholarly than Rand. However, if someone is going to dismiss Rand via a borrowed quote, it might behoove them to re-visit the writing that they may not have laid eyes on in 20 years.

 

[anarchisthermit]

My thoughts on Atlas Shrugged
The biggest evil in the book is the same as what is dragging us down today: Crony Capitalism.
It should not be taken literally. Like many other great works of literature,its value lies in giving intelligent people jumping off point to think.

 

[saint007]

Nice to see so many Libertarians here on this forum.
I hope that you are registered to vote as such as well.
It's all about taking responsibility for one's actions.

 

[skraps]

The biggest evil in the book is the same as what is dragging us down today: Crony Capitalism.

Not sure that is the biggest evil in the book, but it is certainly one of them. The collectivist mindset of both the people and the government is what dominates in my mind.

It should not be taken literally. Like many other great works of literature,its value lies in giving intelligent people jumping off point to think.

Agreed. In every concept or theory, however crazy it may be, there are valuable morsels. The key is extracting the valuable and learning how, where and when to apply it.

 

[number6]

For a great discussion site : https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/.
There were actually three movies in the trilogy (duh) based on Atlas Shrugged. The last movie was titled "Who is John Galt". I believe the people involved in the website were involved in getting the movies made. There is also speculation about a television series to do the book more justice.
This is a direct feed of comments : https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/activity
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

 

[judcole]

Of course it was a quote I borrowed - I did enclose it in quotes,although I didn't acknowledge it.
Here's another one from John Kenneth Galbraith.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
And, succinctly, from a friend of mine: "Ayn Rand was a sociopath." :crazy:

 

[perdurabo]

"The Modern Progresive is engaged in one of Animals oldest exercises in Fairness and equality; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for Greed." -I.Kidd

 

[skraps]

"The Modern Progresive is engaged in one of Animals oldest exercises in Fairness and equality; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for Greed." -I.Kidd

:clap: That made me chuckle, Perdurabo.

 

[judcole]

Too bad it makes no sense whatsoever. :D

 

[perdurabo]

Jud :rofl:

 

[deathmetal]

Here's another one from John Kenneth Galbraith.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Interesting. Let's think that one through.
The conservative says that each is entitled to what he produces, while the liberal says it should be paid into a collective pot and redistributed, if I understand correctly.
The latter appealed to me for many years until I realized that the result was punishment for excellence and rewards for non-performance, which explains why most third-world nations are left-leaning.
Then I read about the executions after the French Revolution and the 100+ million killed by Communists, and how they started with intellectuals, wealthy people, business owners and teachers when they did their killing.
Then I thought about the concepts of scapegoating and revenge, and realized how if you start providing for a man, he will feel both (1) resentment that you are not providing enough and (2) resentment that you are affirming his position as lower than you by giving him things.
While I agree that Rand is crass, the question is whether she is mostly right, and it seems to me that on the question of "selfishness," the real issue we should be talking about is whether people deserve the money they get on the basis of performance. Are all these people really contributing?
But as far as subsidies, equality and other pacifistic notions... I think those will lead to a worse place. History suggests this is true.

 

[skraps]

I guess I just don't understand the idea that working hard for your own success is selfish. Am I selfish because I do not want to dump all of that hard earned wealth into a pot to share with everyone? If that's the case, then I'm proud to be selfish.
It's funny that a man that wants to keep what he earns is selfish, but a man that wants what he hasn't earned isn't.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

 

[deathmetal]

Putting on my triangular hat and making horns on the side of my head with my fingers, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment:
What happens to those who cannot succeed?

 

[skraps]

What happens to those who cannot succeed?

Cannot, or choose not to?
Honestly, it's a great question, DM... and I don't have a good answer for it. I'm not a cold hearted bastard. I don't think there should be zero social assistance in this world, I do however think that it is far too freely doled out. When we reward those who don't make any effort, something is wrong with the system.

 

[deathmetal]

Let's divide the unsuccessful into the two groups you indicated -- cannot and will not -- and go from there.
Speaking again with my devil hat, I can see arguments for both sides:
Pro:

- There's a clear signal about how to behave

- Those who cannot are obsolete by Darwin's standards

- We need the people who can succeed, as all benefit from their work

- It's unfair to take from some to give to others
Con:

- The poor will rise up and overthrow you

- The poor will rise up and commit tons of interesting crimes

- It's cruel

- It costs relatively little to feed and house them at least

- Society is crap and jobs are jails, why force people into them?
But I think it goes more to the root of the social contract itself. What is it to be a member of society? What behavior do we reward, so we get more of it, and what do we penalize, so we get less of it?

 

[perdurabo]

Those who cannot succeed?

It's not my position to care, I'm to busy building my own success to care. My only suggestion is be happy with your equal share, which is the share you chose to build.

 

[skraps]

DM, all good points.

But I think it goes more to the root of the social contract itself. What is it to be a member of society? What behavior do we reward, so we get more of it, and what do we penalize, so we get less of it?

I think we could start a laundry list there.
Perdurabo, and that is what would be referred to as selfish based on Juds quote. But, I'm not sure I see that as a selfish approach. Self preservationist, maybe... but is that bad? Society cannot succeed in any form without people within it that will continue to strive for success.

 

[deathmetal]

My only suggestion is be happy with your equal share, which is the share you chose to build.

What I like about this model is how natural it is: each animal provides for itself, and worries about itself, so that there's no need for complex central control.
Putting on my "Devil's Advocate" hat again, however, I might mention that society itself is a collective enterprise. And some will do ill, and succeed at it. How to address that?

 

[skraps]

I might mention that society itself is a collective enterprise. And some will do ill, and succeed at it. How to address that?

Philosophical and ethical questions abound. The Libertarian view is that is where governments responsibility lies. Protect against threats to individual liberties. If you choose to do ill, and that ill violates the rights of someone else to live their life and earn their share, then the government steps in.
That is a slippery slope though I suppose. It also does not address what to do with those that have no desire to succeed.

 

[deathmetal]

Protect against threats to individual liberties.

With my Rum-soaked Perique Devil's Advocate hat on here, I have to ask:
What about threats to civilization itself here, in other words, to what is shared?
You know I've gotta mention Garrett Hardin here:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component...
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

And what do you do when the new neighbors set up a "24 Hour Anal Pornography and Sadistic Bondage Sex Shop"?
Individual liberties protect individuals, but what about communities and the natural world?

It also does not address what to do with those that have no desire to succeed.

I guess my question here, for them, would be why?
If they hate soulless modern life, I kind of understand...
If they're just lazy and mentally disorganized, or on meth, maybe not so much. Should Darwin allowed the grim laugh in those cases?