Atlas Shrugged - Week 3: Ch 5&6

[lludwig]

FYI, this is why I'm reading it the now third time.

There are things I'm noticing I didn't notice the first read. Not because I'm stupid or need a dictionary but I have a better grasp on the topics discussed when I didn't the first time around.

The point isn't to be a teacher but to tell what I've learned and got out of it.

Though since I have read it twice already to point out items that should be pointed out. Because they will be mentioned again and again and again.

This is, after all, a discussion about the book right???

If you don't want us to discuss the philosophy of the book then this discussion is silly and moot.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[BellaPippin]

I'm with @Bekit I've been enjoying it so far, even with the tangent-y discussions in the middle. It keeps me engaged until next Friday and I get to note a lot of things I missed on the first read or hadn't considered. I'm all memey but in reality I'm reading all your convos and learning a lot.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lludwig]

Here's another one, ripped from the headlines:

"These funding sources have become a bone of contention among University of Michigan students: "We regret the Administration's willingness to support business moguls whose advancement on gentrification inflicts harm on Detroit residents and believe the largest public university in our state has an obligation to invest in projects which center community members, equity and justice – not profits," they wrote in their petition, signed by 378 people as of Nov. 20." ~ Source: https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/...tion-center-in-downtown-detroit-sparks-debate

The donors, who probably shouldn't have wasted their money attempting to lift Detroit above post- apocalypse status with support for a state run institution, obviously needed to donate in CASH like Rearden, if they wanted this to pan out.

And this law for NJ.

The lives of hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans are about to be destroyed (JEFF EDELSTEIN COLUMN)

Attention fellow New Jerseyans: We are about to get screwed like we've never been screwed before by state Sen. President Steve Sweeney, the rest of the legislature, and, if he

www.trentonian.com

A similar law is going into effect Jan 1st for California.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

it’s also worth noting the axiom: “praise in public, critique in private”

This axiom exists for a reason.

In general, when I’m unhappy with something someone says or does (in this thread or otherwise) a private convo (dm, phone call, etc.) goes a lot farther than a public reprimand and belittlement.

(and i often forget this and need to remember, too)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kruiser]

I think this is because Rockefeller got his start in Cleveland. In the era when the book was written, he had just died and was still a pretty big deal and associated with all things Titanous.

IMO so far he's only shown to value what other people think of him, from what I can tell.

Ok, the Cleveland thing makes a lot more sense now. It seemed totally random to me.

I think you're right on Taggart.

 

[broswoodwork]

Eddie and the Brakeman traveling to The People’s State of China

A fan-fiction follow up that the world must have!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Primeperiwinkle]

Ok but let’s discuss the convo between Hank and Francisco. Is it just me or is Francisco sizing him up to later destroy him too??

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Lilian is a very smart person, but I think this is probably her dumbest move in her entire life. Trade her husband's extremely thoughtful, one-of-a-kind gift for a diamond bracelet, which she most likely has plenty, and to do so in public? Seriously, no matter how undesirable someone's gift is, you're obligated to at least show some form of appreciation - keep it at home if you really don't value it, but don't throw it away like that. She'll likely regret her actions later.

Henry must have disliked her wife even more after this. I know I would if someone close to me do this. She has pushed him further away (despite wanting and trying hard to connect with him) and made a fool of herself.

I HATED Lillian in that chapter but Dagny doing this was not appropriate, at all. Hank is Lillian’s guy not Dagny’s. You can’t be having a girl pissing match over a married man! Sheesh.

If he hasn’t had the cajones to deal with Lillian’s twisty cold meanness in eight years what makes you think he’s gonna magically change now? He made his bed.. now he’s gotta lie in it, alone.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Primeperiwinkle]

As far as Hank's family and family friends... Yikes. It is hard to feel sorry for him though because it was his choice. I still do.

That’s nice of you but it’s been eight years. He’s had plenty of time to go to therapy.

Fun stuff. Sorry I missed it yesterday.

You’re here now and it makes us happy! We saved you a chair - it’s a very fancy chair.

Why did Francisco harm TT? Why would he want to hurt Hank?

The love of his life is intrinsically connected to one of the biggest and most corrupt businesses .. and she doesn’t see it. At all. Sigh.

Hank is easily used. He’s a fragile man who can’t work out his own emotions and he’s really really good at making cool stuff.

They have a weapon against you. It’s their only weapon, but it’s a terrible one. Ask yourself what it is, some time.

This is from the convo between Francisco and Hank correct?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Primeperiwinkle]

“It is against the sin of forgiveness that I wanted to warn you.”

I think that’s the weapon he can’t stand against. Hank stands on his own pride to know who he is. If he was pitied he would crumple.

“Rearden could accept any form of reproach, abuse, damnation anyone chose to throw at him: the only human reaction which he would not accept was pity.”

Pitied as someone who is torturously alone. Pitied because his own mother shows him no respect. Pitied as a man who has worked to create an empire but can’t understand his own wife.

But I don’t know which way Rand is gonna take the story..

She’s braiding her themes well. I have a feeling she wants to whip us all with them though. Sigh. Rand is the one who can’t take pity I’d bet. This book is a knifes edge of pride and lust w/ just enough truth to cut a vein.

I know TT is going to fall but Rand has made Dagny the heroine. And now we’re seeing Francisco as this god-like character orchestrating things. It’s like, why add in a mysterious Superman? He’s the force of justice on all the characters but he can’t save Dagny, yet.

And yes, she’s absolutely the love of his life. Men like that don’t weep in agony, held in the arms of their beloved, a hairsbreadth away from begging for no reason.

 

[Tubs]

Guys. Nobody’s discussing Francisco’s Dad or his education.

Or the slap.

Or the Viking guy.

Are y’all huddled up reading the next chapters already? Come on.. say it ain’t so.

Been a bit busy and just finished chapters 5 & 6 yesterday. I think I see where this story is going now.

Francisco is trying to bring down all the remaining productive companies not because he's some useless playboy or he's doing it for fun. But rather because his goal is to crush all the parasitic people like James Taggert and all those people at that party.

Think about it. At this point the only reason those people are still able to thrive is bacuse they're leeching off the success of others who work hard. Like Dagney and Rearden. Same with the governments of various countries. The peoples state of Mexico for example was hoping to get themselves out of their situation not through hard work, but through taking Francisco's resources as well as the Taggert railways built down there. And apparently other states are like that with all the People's states of whatever overseas.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

• Do you think there are any similarities to what we see in society today?
• Do you see any of yourself in the characters? If so, who?
• Has the book changed anything about how you look at the world?

No to all of the above.

Sorry? I just don’t identify with any of these characters, yet. I’m starting to feel a bit bad because it’s a powerfully written book and has obviously impacted many people but so far.. it’s not hitting me too deep. I love Dagny but I wouldn’t say I see myself in her at all. I’m just really enjoying the writing style.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

it’s interesting that you’d rather take a 3000 foot view of values while lumping together significant issues under the heading of “These are all political” while I want to be up close and personal and see which character aligns with my personal values most.

My apologies, I think you’re misreading me.

I’m not intending to say “These are all political”. I intend to say, “This is much deeper than being just political.”

I am also not discouraging you from identifying with a character; I think you will just have a hard time doing that (as you’ve already stated), since these characters are so unrealistically hyperbolic and archetypal.

EDIT to add: I found myself also unable to identify with any single character, yet all of them at once.

 

[MTEE1985]

I want to be up close and personal and see which character aligns with my personal values most.

I found myself also unable to identify with any single character, yet all of them at once.

This is what I’ve been asking myself throughout the book:

What characteristics of each person do I feel I have now?

What characteristics of each person do I want to emulate moving forward?

Who would I most want to align with in my life and business dealings?


To clarify my point from earlier @Primeperiwinkle I too think politics is despicable and find hundreds of things tied for the top of my “most shitty thing going on in the world” list. I just singled one out as it pertained to the discussion of similarities between the book and current environment.

Moral, economic, political etc are all intertwined regardless of how they are weighted. My current focus is on the future politic/economic direction our country is in and headed. @csalvato posted a great article the other day about it:

OFF-TOPIC - The U.S. Only Pretends to Have Free Markets

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/europe-not-america-home-free-market/600859/ This article caught my eye today. Some interesting quotes here: None of this has happened by chance. In 1999, the United States had free and competitive markets in many industries that, in Europe...

www.thefastlaneforum.com

There are so many similarities to this book and where things appear to be headed and where we are now in the US as well as where the appetite of this countries citizens appears to be headed. So many so that I’ve accelerated plans and had discussions with fellow forum members on when and where myself and my family might move to in the next 2-5 years.

I believe you read and interpret at a much deeper level than me which is why you are still dissecting characters that I felt I knew after 4 chapters. You of all people know that I’m an emotional moron

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

Pfft. I feel about libertarians the way I feel about pacifists. I can sympathize, I just can't be swayed to agree. They both lose me on the subject of a strong military. It's nice to be an idealist, the world needs them, but that's not me.

IIUC, Big L Libertarians and little L libertarians aren’t necessarily against a strong military, right?

I thought both groups are just for a military that’s large enough to support self defense and small enough to not impede individual liberties through over funding or trying to drive innovation like the private sector should.

 

[csalvato]

That doesn’t make me feel any better. I’m on an entrepreneurial forum. To say I don’t share the values of entrepreneurs is essentially a life-altering statement. Must I be like these characters to be a “good” entrepreneur?

I didn’t say all entrepreneurs share those values. I said entrepreneurs, in general, tend to share those values.

Andrew Yang and Reid Hoffman would be examples of entrepreneurs who have different values to Dagny and Rearden. I’d put down a years income they HATE Atlas Shrugged.

They are both successful, impactful entrepreneurs.

I wouldn’t consider this realization about yourself to be damning; this is just teaching you something about yourself for this chapter of your story, imo. You write your own story!

You’re fine the way you are, and only through a level of comfort with that can you self express as whatever you want to be - entrepreneur or otherwise!

 

[scottmsul]

For those who are reading this for the first time.

• Do you think there are any similarities to what we see in society today?
• Do you see any of yourself in the characters? If so, who?
• Has the book changed anything about how you look at the world?

Elon Musk seems very similar to the industrial protagonists in the book. Starting a rocket startup is insane. Inventing re-usable rockets is crazy. He sounds a lot like Hank Reardon, except Elon is a well-liked celebrity. Does anyone wonder why that is? Did Rand get something wrong about the world, or is Elon just different?

 

[lludwig]

Elon Musk seems very similar to the industrial protagonists in the book. Starting a rocket startup is insane. Inventing re-usable rockets is crazy. He sounds a lot like Hank Reardon, except Elon is a well-liked celebrity. Does anyone wonder why that is? Did Rand get something wrong about the world, or is Elon just different?

Elon IMHO is like a James Taggert at least in two areas:

• His government assistance for his businesses (tax rebates (Telsa), public loans (Telsa), usage of his company services (SpaceX), etc.)
• He promotes altruism which society very much likes.

Obviously Elon is much much more than that, but that is at least in my eyes why he's well-liked.

 

[BizyDad]

Nice try! I didn’t say they were my beliefs, just my understanding based on what I know

Source: Foreign Policy

I’m actually for the weak military you despise, but that’s a separate conversation all together

Nice try? Oh, that's funny.

Also funny... your response amounts to "I didn't say that". I'm glad you already recognize the bit of James Taggert in you...

Also funny... Did I use the word belief? Or despise? There's a straw man, and there's fallacy #3.

Nice try though!

**Let's break for a gratuitous A Few Good Men reference**

It appears your "understanding" and/or "what you know" still contains logical fallacy #2. As long as that's true, I have neither the time nor the inclination to chat with you about a strong military. I'd rather you just said "thank you" and went about your day. You want the truth? You want the TRUTH?

**Apologies to the people at the brownie table for turning up the TV too loud**

I love when I'm caught in a logical fallacy, since that's when I improve.

I thought this logical fallacy exercise is about improving, is that still the case?

You just let me know if this is the kind of "weedy mess" or "uncomfortable conversation" that you enjoy, ok? I'm happy to stop when you say when...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

Let’s not mistake the act of voluntary philanthropy with support for central control.

Musk is a bad example that leads to such comparisons.

Being a good person and wanting to improve the world around you doesn’t necessarily make you some Jim Taggart.

I definitely agree!

A much better example of capitalist altruism with this in mind is Charles Koch. Why? Because he believes that he already made the world a better place by employing hundreds of thousands and providing value to millions. That is not all though. He also supports nonprofit organizations like CATO and Americans for Prosperity. These are organizations that exist to help Americans continue to have to ability to build things that matter. Their own masterpieces.

I'm not sure that the phrase capitalist altruism makes sense. In the capitalist system if you don't get something in return for what you provide, you die.

Koch in particular sought out, and made, billions for the value he added to the world; so he can't fit the definition of an altruist.

A secular example of an altruist is the Giving Tree: http://www.thebestclass.org/uploads/5/6/2/4/56249715/the_giving_tree.pdf

In the book, James Taggart parades around as though he's an altruist, willing to give up everything to help others just like the Giving Tree.

In reality, he's giving up the hard work of his ancestors so that other people will think more highly of him.

This raises a question: is there such a thing as altruism, really? Should a person ever really act against their own self-interest? Is it even possible to do that?

EDIT: Addressing your edit:

On the other side of the fence we have the REAL Jim Taggarts... How about Jamie Dimon? Warren Buffet? Ray Dalio? These are the guys that will still be rich even if they get a central control... The JTs of the world are already large enough that they can comply easily with new regulation while it severely hurts competition. So they support forcing their will on others in the name of economic freedom. Ironically, handouts and government propped up advantages do not equal economic freedom, they equal economic slavery.

Damn straight. I love when you post.

Warren Buffet is pretty bad through this lens.

He preaches altruism and how 'All lives have equal value' while investing in companies with shady-as-hell business practices, making billions more, and then preaching how he wants to give all his money away via wealth taxes.

Something about how he conducts himself just doesn't add up to me.

 

[lludwig]

I think a better person to showcase James Taggert is the ex-CEO of WeWork Adam "Alfred E." Neumann.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

In her terms, you are altruistic if you sacrifice yourself for the means of others.

That you hurt yourself to help others.

She also believes this is the most immoral thing one can do

She didn’t have kids huh?

 

[lludwig]

She didn’t have kids huh?

How did you guess?

Though long-term she is right though. Even for your kids.

 

[BellaPippin]

How did you guess?

Though long-term she is right though. Even for your kids.

Isn't it cool how this can trigger discussions at so many levels

From the creators of Elon Musk's Altruism comes

Helicopter Parents

 

[StrikingViper69]

She didn’t have kids huh?

So according to Ayn Rand who you are now speaking for since you’ve apparently read her so extensively and you’re sharing with us since we are specifically asking you to tell us all about her even though we haven’t read the book, choosing to keep your child and raise it to move out and be a productive member of society is ultimately a selfish choice?

Yes, assuming that’s what you want, and you don’t have a child because your parents / society / etc expect you to

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

The law of reciprocity.

It is the law of reciprocity and mentioned in the book Influence.

You're mixing together reciprocity + altruism. These two things aren't the same.

Reciprocity is the tendency to want to reciprocate. In Influence, the tool is used to generate unbalanced reciprocity.

That is, I am your waiter and give you a mint after dinner, and you want to give me a bigger, better tip worth way more than a 5¢ mint. Or I watch your kids one night, so you feel you "owe me one" and watch my dog for a whole week while I'm in Mexico.

If Tony Robbins gave you $10, then asked you for $10,000; that's the reciprocity that Cialdini was writing about.

In your example, donating on purchase, is not altruism or reciprocity. If we wanted to stick with what's talked about in Influence, then that's actually consistency – you want to purchase with someone/something consistent with your beliefs.

Going back to the case of Elon, if you care about the environment, you want to be consistent with that and support a company who is working towards caring for the environment.

In the case of Tony Robbins, if you care about feeding people in need, you'll be more inclined to buy because you get the added value of feeling like you're being consistent in your belief with something you care about.

To illustrate how it's not altruistic, Cards Against Humanity did the same thing - but instead of donating, they used that money to buy bullshit gifts for people in Congress. This sold not because it was altruistic or reciprocal; but because it was consistent with the beliefs of the purchaser:

How we spent your money - Cards Against Humanity

What kind of valuable bribes could we buy with one dollar from each of our Holiday Bullshit subscribers? Let’s find out.

www.cardsagainsthumanity.com

Now Cards Against Humanity is getting into the game with the windfall profits from our Holiday Bullshit campaign, where 250,000 people paid us $15 each to send them ten mystery gifts during the month of December.

That's not altruistic – it's simply knowing your market and adding value to their purchase by aligning it with their values.

 

[lludwig]

I sincerely don’t think you understand what your comments are accomplishing. You think you’re adding to the convo but in reality you’re correcting a bunch of ppl about terms .. people who haven’t even dared to start digging in to the book.

I'm mentioning these terms because they are key concepts of the book.

They should be discussed.

Rightly or wrongly. I'm correcting what's mentioned because of how they are defined by Ayn Rand, not me. Sure you can interpret it a different way but there are parts she has specifically clarified her intent on those passages.

It doesn't mean I agree with all of her terms either.

The book is more than just a work of fiction it is ultimately making philosophical statements. Sometimes the same statement described in multiple plot lines.

 

[csalvato]

if when they do that you or csalvato swoop in with what Ayn Rand REALLY meant

Uhm...there's seriously no reason for any attacks here.

We are all thinking, musing, discussing how the book has shaped us...then you tell us we're all doing it wrong.

It seems like you want this book and discussion to fit into a box that it doesn't want to get into.

Why not be grateful that you kicked off a life-altering discussion for hundreds of people here, even if it's not the form you want?

Either that, or you can continue on your current course, which won't change how people are discussing the book, and alienate a bunch of people?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

If I really am alienating ppl.. I would hope they would tell me.

We are telling you. Right now, actually.

Instead the only ppl who seem to be getting ... shall we say feisty.. are ppl who say “I’ve already read the book I know what Ayn Rand intended! Let me tell you guys all I know while NEVER sharing my own personal opinions because I can’t! I just can’t share anything right now! It’s too soon!!”

You're the only one getting fiesty, as far as I can tell.

We discuss how the book has shaped us, you disagree with that, then we are told to defend ourselves, and we either:

1. Refuse to out of respect for spoilers (and are ostracized by you for not disclosing what we think)
2. Indulge you (and get ostracized by you for "spoiling" the book or trying to teach you the whole book)

Most posts are even consistently limiting themselves to the chapters you want.

You guys can wait. All I’m asking for is some time.

Every week we have more ppl who are wondering out loud. It’s awesome.

Please let them.

If we get the themes wrong for half the book.. fine! I’m certain we’re intelligent enough to learn from our mistakes.. IF you let us make them.

What I’m doing is NOT letting you make judgments about the book for us, NOT letting you tell us what Ayn Rand “meant”, NOT letting you take us down a trail where we look at the book as a whole.. because we’re not there yet.

Nobody in the book discussion that hasn’t read the whole book can argue with you guys. It seems like you have all the answers.

But there’s no test.

If you want the book to have an impact on us... LET IT.

If the book is strong enough.. it will.

By this logic, no one could ever teach an english literature class, unless the teacher themself had never read the book, because anyone with prior knowledge wouldn't be able to guide the discussion.

No one is telling you how to judge the book, or whether or not you should accept Ayn Rand's definitions of anything, or even mandating that you read any posts from anyone who is discussing the book in the way you dislike.

People are discussing the book in their own way. Just let them so we can all grow. Isn't that the point?

If you don't like it, just ignore us. There's even an ignore button to make this easy for you. I personally wouldn't mind if you ignored my posts; I'm still getting a ton out of this discussion by hearing and engaging with everyone's perspective.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

If you’re being bludgeoned it’s with love.. as defined by Webster’s. ROFL