Atlas Shrugged - Week 4: Ch 7 & 8

[Kak]

Hahaha! Calling me a bootlicking statist is about as accurate as my calling you a free wheeling hippie.

Who got triggered though?



You know you could just go back and read for yourself. Ok, I'll remind you the thread of the conversation, but only because I respect you and want to hear the Peter Forbes story.

So I said show me a single example of a successful society which lacked a government. You said its never been tried.

I said surely some tribe, aka a tiny society where the government is vested in leaders, must have attempted a leaderless society.

I can't fathom any collection of people of any real size not having implemented a government, so I posited this example as the only feasible example I could think of where a society had no government.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth; I was making my own point.

That said, when a dyed in the wool "Ron Paul Republican" shares a T.J. quote about democracy, well, I don't know about anyone else, but I actually have a pretty good idea of what type of government he'd prefer.

Funny thing, you clearly have no idea what type of government I prefer.

So you are pro limited government, as am I, however our definition of limited likely varies in degree, with my preferring just a bit more government than you'd like. To what degree is something I am currently exploring for myself and until just now, I enjoyed your contributions. You got triggered by a childish shot. I understand. I don't appreciate the friendly fire.

And now for the second time I'll attempt to extricate myself from this can of worms.



I. Completely. Agree. Of course there is no greater gift.

Thank you for clearing that up for me, I really should've seen it sooner.

Look. My original post was about propaganda of the State Science Institute and how that relates to today's media and government. It does.

The mob rule lies with the momentum of the country. The momentum of the country is manipulated by the media and propagandists.

They say it only takes 3 generations to screw up a legacy left by builder... What is impressive is how far we have gotten on our inheritance from the founding fathers. Very wise men indeed.

What is the best example for limited government? Well the standard of living in all countries is pretty much in direct proportion to the amount they have limited their governments for the last 200 years. We did really well for a while there... Made quite the rise to prominence... But we have since forgotten what got us here; people, not government. So that does tell us something.

I look at government like a landlord. I rent my ability to reside and operate my life here for my tax money; all of it. Income, property, capital gains, sales, etc. Right now it is worth what I pay. Will it be forever? No. Am I bitter? No. It is their right to do it, the monopoly on force has the final say, but it is my right to find a new "landlord" that I like better.

That leads me to the question: What would happen if governments, like landlords, had to compete for our residency? If they want the best and brightest, what would happen if they had to compete for them? What would happen if a new island government wasn't a government at all but was a for profit company where the customers were the willing "taxpayers/renters" with an ability to emigrate or immigrate? Would that company and its leadership do what is best to attract and keep its customers/citizens? Yes, to an extent. The problem... You are only going to be as competitive as you have to be to stand out. Now imagine a saturated market of these microstates. What would it do to the world economy? How would it effect more "legitimate" governments? I would argue positively. Competition is what I would call ideal in an imperfect world.

My apologies if I mischaracterized your views. At this point, I shared mine. Why don't you share yours? You obviously feel very strongly. I'd like to know why.

Make good points and I'll eat every word. I'm not kidding. I am open to learning anything.

Until I am convinced otherwise, I will continue to believe the following:

Capitalism is the greatest tool in the advancement of peace and prosperity that man has ever created.

AND

Government is the biggest threat to peace and prosperity that man has ever created.

 

[Kruiser]

You can’t possibly miss the drama, pride, lust, honor, sacrifice, pristine writing skills and absolute betrayal!!! Oooooo!! Now let’s talk about the book! Hehehe...

Maybe we could have two threads this week. One to discuss the book. One to discuss the discussion of the book. That would be so meta.

 

[Kak]

One thing really really stood out to me in this week's reading... Control. PSYCOLOGICAL CONTROL.

Look at how the state science institute, which should be the state propaganda institute put out a hit on Rearden steel.

Intentionally manipulating their words. "Since we are the authority and we have refused to test and accurately report on the integrity of the metal we all must basically assume it is terrible and not to be trusted."

The government does this with so so so many things.

They currently have a department of travel advisory. The only point of the department is to issue warnings about leaving the USA and that it "could be" dangerous to visit other countries that are often statistically safer than some of our cities.

They have the FDA. Many know that the FDA and their wonderful food pyramid is a load of crap. That is getting exposed for what it is. Political propaganda.

The "fact" that everyone who doesn't support affirmative action and reparations is a racist, nazi, xenophobe.

That the USA is the freest country on earth. It isn't.

Capitalism needs government. Of course they want you to think this one.

What stands out to me is that public perception is swayed by momentum. All they do is change the momentum and everyone jumps on board.

In conclusion... Democracy is flawed on these premises. People can't be trusted to understand most issues so why give them power over them? The answer... They don't. Republican or Democrat the country marches on in relatively the same destructive and collectivist direction.

I don't like literary free diving. So, in practicality, this concept is HUGELY relatable to modern culture and people swallow it hook line and sinker every single day.

Chevron has always made me laugh. They understand how stupid people are just like the government.

"No gas gets better mileage!"
"No gas is cleaner for emissions!"
Look them up.

There are people that hear these sentences and think... "Wow, Chevron gets better mileage!"

Propaganda is alive and well.

 

[Kak]

I believe it is common sense to see that capitalism, left unchecked, will allow immoral men to behave immorally, at a higher rate than if those same immoral men have a "watcher" keeping an eye on them.

But is the solution to say forget government, "the market" will fix all our ills? Give us more "freedom" to do ills? And if you aren't saying the market will fix the ills, then who or what will?

I don’t want to open a giant can of worms on this, but I will say I disagree. Never in history have “ills” not been a problem. Thousands of years of government has never once fixed “ills.” The only thing that is proven systematically to reduce “ills” is prosperity.

You might say the government checks capitalist wrongdoing. To that I ask how? When? And why should they have the authority to determine what a wrongdoing and a check is?

You might say that government solves problems that capitalism won’t. To that I ask, like what?

Show me an instance of perceived government benevolence and I will show you an exercise in control, a power grab, or a money funneling opportunity.

Show me an actual problem solved and I will show you a capitalist with a profit motive.

Capitalism doesn't need a precursor like conscious, or common sense. It is already common sense.



The ONLY reason the USA worked so well is because this has been the closest thing to a voluntary society the world has known for the longest amount of time. Those days are, however, over. We are no longer more economically free than any other first world country.

 

[BellaPippin]

Hol' up. College sophomores libertarian? All the ones I've encountered sound like they have shrines to the Che and Marx in their campus rooms and Feel The Bern stickers on their hoverboards.

This also holds 4x true the more south you go continentally.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Oh my gosh!!! I just randomly connected this whole “futility” theme to the book of Ecclesiastes! Haaaa!! That’s huge!

I’m also wondering if Hank is gonna destroy Dagny one week after the “simultaneous event” or if he can find other ways to subdue her w/ a contemptuous smirk over and over..?

I hope we get to meet John Galt someday..

But even as a little business person I do see the benefits of action.. and clear purpose. I wonder if selling products is easier than offering services because of that.. hm.

This book is marvelously entertaining.

 

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

[BellaPippin]

"Show me your John Galt"

somebody to detail out how many times Rearden saved TT.

Quick, a spreadsheet

Who is the third friend though. John Galt?

That was my first thought too, still is.

As the train crosses the bridge, the bridge fails. Dagny, Rearden, and the train crash to the canyon floor, EVERYTHING climaxes in a gigantic explosion. Rand teaches us the folly of hubristic self-reliance and the destruction to self and society it causes. James Taggart, the book's true hero, emerges and leads TT and society as a whole into an age of other-centered altruistic business practices.

The other 3/4 of the book is an in detail chronicle of how they convert the US into a communist country (for the good of The People) and everybody is happy every after (or so they say, because they control the media). Possible cameo: Winston Smith from 1984

 

[Tubs]

Getting pretty hard to not read ahead. But I dont want to leave you as the last one who hasn't @Primeperiwinkle XD

Its getting pretty interesting now. We found out the connection between Ragnar and Francisco. Both being students and best friends. Who is the third friend though. John Galt?

Its pretty clear now that Francisco and his friends are working to bring down the system. Francisco is taking down businesses from the inside with his bad deals. Ragnar is raiding ships and disappearing with the loot. And the third friend is probably John Galt who is masterminding the whole thing.

 

[Kruiser]

Oh my gosh!!! I just randomly connected this whole “futility” theme to the book of Ecclesiastes! Haaaa!!

Please expand. I don't get it. I'm not saying I disagree. I just don't get it.

Its getting pretty interesting now. We found out the connection between Ragnar and Francisco. Both being students and best friends. Who is the third friend though. John Galt?

I don't think 3rd friend is John Galt. I think it is an old saying, and D'Anconia isn't that old. But missing 3rd friend and also second professor are probably key.
-
My guess for Dagny's stalker: someone we don't know. Someone not romantically interested in her, but someone who wants to communicate info about a conspiracy of sorts to bring her and Rearden down. That's why he's fighting with himself; he can't decide whether to tell her or not.
-
Did anyone else think "holy cow, they're going to go for it in the train's engine room?"
-
Alternate plot:

As the train crosses the bridge, the bridge fails. Dagny, Rearden, and the train crash to the canyon floor, EVERYTHING climaxes in a gigantic explosion. Rand teaches us the folly of hubristic self-reliance and the destruction to self and society it causes. James Taggart, the book's true hero, emerges and leads TT and society as a whole into an age of other-centered altruistic business practices.
-
Rearden's a weird dude. It is one thing to desire a business associate. But he is just so weird in his desire for Dagny. I listened to these chapters a few weeks ago (when I was young and reckless and didn't follow the book discussion rules), so I don't remember the details. But I remember thinking not so much "that's wrong" as "that's strange."

Is this important? I don't know. Rearden might just be a psychologically twisted guy who is very unintegrated but has great business talent and drive.

I just don't know if Rand is trying to say something about the relationship between...

...I don't know. Our bodies and our minds? Business drive and sexuality? Again, I'm not sure.

--
I've got some key deadlines today, so I'm checking out for the day. But I'll re-engage early next week. Looking forward to learning from everyone!

 

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

[Tubs]

Please expand. I don't get it. I'm not saying I disagree. I just don't get it.



I don't think 3rd friend is John Galt. I think it is an old saying, and D'Anconia isn't that old. But missing 3rd friend and also second professor are probably key.
-
My guess for Dagny's stalker: someone we don't know. Someone not romantically interested in her, but someone who wants to communicate info about a conspiracy of sorts to bring her and Rearden down. That's why he's fighting with himself; he can't decide whether to tell her or not.
-
Did anyone else think "holy cow, they're going to go for it in the train's engine room?"
-
Alternate plot:

As the train crosses the bridge, the bridge fails. Dagny, Rearden, and the train crash to the canyon floor, EVERYTHING climaxes in a gigantic explosion. Rand teaches us the folly of hubristic self-reliance and the destruction to self and society it causes. James Taggart, the book's true hero, emerges and leads TT and society as a whole into an age of other-centered altruistic business practices.
-
Rearden's a weird dude. It is one thing to desire a business associate. But he is just so weird in his desire for Dagny. I listened to these chapters a few weeks ago (when I was young and reckless and didn't follow the book discussion rules), so I don't remember the details. But I remember thinking not so much "that's wrong" as "that's strange."

Is this important? I don't know. Rearden might just be a psychologically twisted guy who is very unintegrated but has great business talent and drive.

I just don't know if Rand is trying to say something about the relationship between...

...I don't know. Our bodies and our minds? Business drive and sexuality? Again, I'm not sure.

--
I've got some key deadlines today, so I'm checking out for the day. But I'll re-engage early next week. Looking forward to learning from everyone!

I think Reardens strong sexual desire is a result of him holding in his desires and emotions for too long. Earlier he said how he sees it as a weakness in his character that he does it with his wife.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Please expand. I don't get it. I'm not saying I disagree. I just don't get it.

In The War of Art Steven Pressfield writes about a great evil force he calls Resistance. His entire book is a rallying cry to any artist or entrepreneur to rise up and Do The Work. Resistance is any thought or emotion that attempts to “reason” us out of doing the great work we are made to do. Steven Pressfield says that it’s our job to fight against Resistance with everything in us.

In Atlas Shrugged the protagonists Hank and Dagny are fighting a huge amount of Resistance to their work - the main opposing mood is that everything is futile. In other words - Why try? Their world is steeped in this belief but the good guys (and us) get energized by their every accomplishment against it.

Good guys are against the feeling of Futility. They don’t despair. They carry on. They overcome. We love what Dagny and Hank accomplished in these chapters because, at least for a span, they won against the force we all fight against.

Rand could have made their triumph pure and amazing, instead she tainted it with a culmination of two people’s selfish desires to experience “obscene” pleasure - she didn’t describe their sex scene with any real love at all.. it was just taking. (I’m not saying that crazy wild sex is bad btw.. you can have slaps and whips and chains with love, trust, kindness and clear communication .. but they didn’t have that.)

So how does any of that connect to Ecclesiastes??

Solomon was a man with extraordinary blessings. He became so rich and was so wise that every nation surrounding his wanted to give him presents and visit him just to hear him talk. Are there ANY historical examples of leaders being that rich AND that popular AND having enough wives to sleep with a hundred different hotties each day of the week with no repeats? I think not.

Solomon ran a kingdom. But get this.

At the end of his life, he wrote a little book called Ecclesiastes. In it Solomon says “I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold all was vanity and a striving after the wind”.

In other words.. futile.


If you strip every reference about God from Ecclesiastes and don’t put it in the middle of the Bible, which offers a singular Hope Solomon didn’t quite conceive of.. you get the most depressing book ever because if nothing could make Solomon happy what hope is there for any of us?

The main reason I fight so hard for ppl to read classics written PRIOR to 1920 is that almost every book written back then automatically included a God-centered or Right vs. Wrong narrative. But Rand doesn’t have that, at least from what you guys have told me about her. Emily Dickinson, arguably one of the greatest poets to have ever lived, said “Tell the truth, but tell it slant”

I always look for the truth in literature.. the slant makes it fascinating.. but there’s always some aspect of truth in the really powerful books.
So I’ve been asking myself “What truth did Ayn Rand hit on in this book? What truth did she tell with a slant?” I think she showed futility. (And probably a lot more than that but this is what popped into my head today.)

“Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”

 

[BizyDad]

I just put the book down and read the comments. Y'all so deep.

I agree with the three students of Patrick Henry theory. Totally John Galt masterminding.

I get the feeling Rand really enjoyed naming the University.

"Give me liberty or give me death".

I disagree that this isn't a book with a right vs wrong theme. To me, it is taking great pains to be exactly that. It just is redefining those terms on a non God centric view. I believe it rejects that world view.

And the issue of true liberty seems to be at the crux of it. All the heroes adopt a "you be you and I'll be me" stance, especially in their hardest times. The rest proclaim the need to consider our fellow man.

Liberty vs the tyranny of the majority seems to be the right vs wrong at play here. At least one of them.

And my mind is juggling who is right. I still think the "villians" have a point, at least in real life. In this book, they suffer from an addling of the brain.

I want to ponder more and write more later, but I'm sure of it.

There were some incredibly thought provoking quotes I want to pull out. Like this, "the sight of an achievement was the greatest gift a human being could offer to others."

Is this true? I can't say it is. But this "ethic", or a wasted down version of it, seems to be everywhere now. In the TV era much of our current society has devolved into spectacle. Who reads books over a century old when there's Netflix and the NFL?

But I can't decide what I think the greatest gift is. Truth? People don't appreciate truth (the physicist had a good point). Individuals might appreciate truth, but people don't. So is it Love? Forgiveness?

And yet, achievements like the moon landing or breaking the four minute mile bring Hope. It shows us what's possible. It inspires. I mean, the girl has a point.

I don't know. And it bothers me that I don't know. I should know this by now. This is an important question.

What is the greatest gift a human can give others? (Emphasis on the plurality)

And that is just one of several quotes like it. This book is a fascinating read (I am back to liking it now), but mostly because it makes me evaluate my answers to important questions often left too long unconsidered.

 

[broswoodwork]

I think if the founding fathers included a clause that forbid vote buying with other's private property, we'd have as close to a perfect system as possible.

I've never been able to totally make the leap to an-cap, though I respect their ideals. I'm stuck over here in minarchism.

 

[Tubs]

Honestly I feel like there's no real choice left in terms of political parties. We've gotten to the point where all you can realistically get into office is a democrat, or a republican. And both parties feel pretty similar at this point.

Republicans tout themselves as being "fiscally conservative" and "small government" but have been running up massive debt since Reagen, and seem to intervene just as much as democrats these days.

Very unfortunate, and very cringe. This isn't what the founders intended at all.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Atlas Shrugged - Week 4: Ch 7 & 8
Book Discussion Guidelines and Schedule

Welcome to Friday’s Book Discussion ladies and gentlemen. You can’t possibly miss the drama, pride, lust, honor, sacrifice, pristine writing skills and absolute betrayal!!! Oooooo!! Now let’s talk about the book! Hehehe...

Chapter 7
Eddie confides tons of secrets to the unknown worker dude, mentioning Dwight Sanders, a man who is going to help TT. The radio later announces that Sanders has quite suddenly closed his business so, he’s no help after all.

Dagny faces trials and tribulations but overcomes these incredible obstacles to keep building the Rio Norte Line. Hank helps her by his bridge building skills even though every major press release and all government agencies condemn both the bridge and Rearden Metal. A man from The State Science Institute tries to buy the rights to Rearden Metal, is refused, then throws some serious shade in the form of publicly denouncing it. Hank’s mother visits him at work, being more stressful to him than any actual disaster.

Dagny meets w/ Dr. Stadler (he started the Institute back in the day) who refuses to publish the truth about Rearden Metal and says “somebody must always be sacrificed in society” and that “we have to deceive or force ppl into letting us accomplish things”. Dr. Stadler once had faith in the unlimited power of reason but he has since become disillusioned.. (surprise surprise) especially since his three brightest pupils (whom he loved like sons and whom were also pupils of Hugh Akston) have all turned out to be great disappointments to him; those pupils were Francisco D’Anconia, Ragnar Danneskjöld and another unnamed person.

Dagny creates her own company to bypass the difficulty TT is embroiled in. She names her new company the John Galt Line.. which infuriates James.

D’Anconio refuses to loan Dagny money but is mysteriously anguished about her having to learn some truth for herself. Hank has a dominating fantasy about Dagny and again reiterates how obscene it is to have sexual desires.

The Equalization of Opportunity Bill is passed which causes some serious emotional pain to many. Hank muses upon the omnipotent cure to any known fear - the ability to act. Then, he has a brilliant idea and gets back to work.



Chapter 8
Dagny sits in her crappy office that looks out into an alley feeling lonely because “This is not the world I expected.” But a little while later celebrates because EVERY engineer who works for TT has volunteered to be the first driver of the first train to ride on the first track across the first bridge made of Rearden Metal.

She holds a press conference with Rearden to announce the date. She openly mocks the reporters (who can’t bear to hear things that hurt their sensibilities) by explaining that she expects to make a pile of money on the John Galt Line.

Dagny and Hank ride together at 100 miles per hour while people from the towns all along The Rio Norte Line cheer and salute them. Later, they have dinner w/ Wyatt Ellis at his pad, then head up to bed where they FINALLY admit (with some interesting body language) that they want to get it on. Hank reveals a slow sensuous mocking smile with contemptuous triumph while Dagny totally digs him and the “knowledge that nothing will be given, that one must make one’s own desire and every shape its fulfillment... to serve one’s chosen goal.” This course of events leads them to the highest shuddering peak, simultaneously.

 

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

[Primeperiwinkle]

Maybe we could have two threads this week. One to discuss the book. One to discuss the discussion of the book. That would be so meta.

I just wanna know who Dagny’s stalker is and if the brakeman is really John Galt and somebody to detail out how many times Rearden saved TT.

Because it was a lot.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Getting pretty hard to not read ahead. But I dont want to leave you as the last one who hasn't @Primeperiwinkle XD

Its getting pretty interesting now. We found out the connection between Ragnar and Francisco. Both being students and best friends. Who is the third friend though. John Galt?

Its pretty clear now that Francisco and his friends are working to bring down the system. Francisco is taking down businesses from the inside with his bad deals. Ragnar is raiding ships and disappearing with the loot. And the third friend is probably John Galt who is masterminding the whole thing.

Thank you!!!! I’m glad we’re in it together.

ETA: I totally think Galt is masterminding it too!!

 

[broswoodwork]

I don't know if Ayn ever asked an average dude what was going through his head when he was interested in someone, and I can only speak for myself and a small circle of friends where that type of talk is comfortable, but I think we're looking at a good old fashion case of author projective identification here.

Either that, or I'm just not cut from the right cloth to be an industrialist. The characters are bit too fixated on the control aspect...

 

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

[Tubs]

I don't know if Ayn ever asked an average dude what was going through his head when he was interested in someone, and I can only speak for myself and a small circle of friends where that type of talk is comfortable, but I think we're looking at a good old fashion case of author projective identification here.

Either that, or I'm just not cut from the right cloth to be an industrialist. The characters are bit too fixated on the control aspect...

Guess you'll need to work on your mindset :^)

 

[BellaPippin]

I don't know if Ayn ever asked an average dude what was going through his head when he was interested in someone, and I can only speak for myself and a small circle of friends where that type of talk is comfortable, but I think we're looking at a good old fashion case of author projective identification here.

Either that, or I'm just not cut from the right cloth to be an industrialist. The characters are bit too fixated on the control aspect...

I mean that sort of brings us back to the time the book was written in, first, and also when I read this part it sort of came to mind she connects their ventures and desire for their businesses to prosper as another human need, just as it appears on Maslow's pyramid, say. Like it's a human need to self-develop and evolve, and I think she drives the point even more strongly connecting it to something so (carnal?) as sex. Not sure if I'm making sense, I don't think I'm doing well putting it into words. But this is sort of because (the little I read) Rand's objectivism is that through the motivation of an individual to be successful eventually the society benefits, and so she makes this huge emphasis that the characters purpose in life is to fullfill their strongest desires. Idk, I see the whole sex thing very symbolic rather than just Rand: "Ima throw some D in here"

 

[Kak]

Man. I triggered the bootlickers this evening. I sincerely apologize for my pro freedom, limited government views. I didn't realize how hurtful shaking up a statist's belief system can be.

Real socialism has also never been given a chance.

You know... They always say that.

you're 19 years old. That's totally understandable and even a bit endearing (private roads! private money! private police force! private armies!).

"I've got one simple principle that explains absolutely everything! Economics! Politics! Religion! Morality! I understand it all and you don't get it! By the way, have you read The Road to Serfdom?"

But libertarianism is sophomoric in the truest sense of the word (which is why it is so appealing to college sophomores).

Eventually, if all goes well, these folks can move beyond libertarianism; take some of the real insights that libertarians have provided and incorporate them into a more complete vision of politics, the economy, and life. [Actually, I'm not sure libertarians themselves have provided anything of value beyond what the Scottish enlightenment thinkers, American founders, and Austrian and Chicago economists have provided. But whatever.]

Wow 3 paragraphs of ad hominem fallacy calling libertarians childish! You win. I surrender.

If not, they become the folks you try to avoid at cocktail parties.

Charles Koch, Peter Thiel, Steve Forbes, and myself will have to have our own cocktail party. We don't provide anything of value whatsoever.

Actually I have been to a cocktail party with Steve Forbes. It was very nice. We talked about all the value we don't provide.

Why is that, do you think?

Because since the beginning of time one person would assert their physical dominance over another. As soon as that would happen, theft would inevitably occur.

And how do we know that is true? Surely some tribe somewhere tried a leader less society.

Leaderless? What about what I have said leads you to think I am advocating for a leaderless society?

You have no idea what type of government I would love to see because I haven't said it.

 

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

[BizyDad]

Again, I didn't say he said leaderless. Sheesh. I gave an example of a small group of people who decided to have no government. These little societies have existed throughout time.

I'm not advocating a leaderless society either.

Best example I can think of though is an equity ownership country club. Day to day there is little bureaucratic bullshit. If something comes up that requires payment, the members all vote and if it passes they split the cost evenly amongst themselves.

In an ideal world, sure. But you also are giving an example of a small group. But in the real world, this has problems. First, it doesn't scale well.

Historically speaking, the men of Athens needed the men of Sparta to save them from the Persians. And it took a great leader, Themistocles, to convince them of this. And the men of Sparta needed the navies of Athens.

The early Romans built into their republic the ability to elect a dictator to a term of 6 months, for they realized that voting can only take them so far in times of crisis.

A problem, as I see it, is the world has far too few men admire Cincinatus and far too many admire Crassus and Caeser.

The early forefathers praised Cincinatus. Today, few, even in the city that bears his name, know his story.

I plan to write more, and I really like what GigMistress had to say, but right now, I must get some work done.

I've heard it argued that many of them were prototypical libertarians. The arguments seemed reasonable, particularly with Jefferson.

What should they be classified as?

Ok, not just yet.

It is unfair to classify them as a group. They fought and disagreed with each other more than we are. And they called each other worse names. Certainly the federalists weren't libertarian what with their insistence on a central bank and all. I mean, the founders also tried a weak central government with the Articles of Conferederation. That didn't work. So they stregthened centralized power in a format of checks and balances. And even that wasn't perfect. One stroke of genius was they built in methods into it so that future generations might have a tool towards forming "a more perfect union".

And answering the question of "how do we form a more perfect union" is one reason why I endeavored to take part in this discussion. I am grateful to everyone for participating.

Now seriously, back to production for me.

 

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

[Kak]

I've always kind of thought of libertarianism as a spectrum that straddles beliefs as disparate "total economic and social anarchy" to "a flat national sales tax would be nice". I'm probably not operating on a precise enough definition, but I think there's enough latitude to admit that some libertarians are pragmatic enough to be admitted into a reasonable adult discourse.

Great post. My thoughts exactly.

Not every libertarian is "an cap." That's why there are "an caps."

 

[Tubs]

"Show me your John Galt"

Quick, a spreadsheet



That was my first thought too, still is.



The other 3/4 of the book is an in detail chronicle of how they convert the US into a communist country (for the good of The People) and everybody is happy every after (or so they say, because they control the media). Possible cameo: Winston Smith from 1984

Why is everyone forgetting the true hero of the story?

Wesley Mouch

 

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

[BizyDad]

Capitalism needs government. Of course they want you to think this one.

When I was younger, I would've agreed with this hook, line and sinker. As I get older, I'm not so sure...

I believe it is common sense to see that capitalism, left unchecked, will allow immoral men to behave immorally, at a higher rate than if those same immoral men have a "watcher" keeping an eye on them.

When that watcher doesn't exist, trouble happens.

When that watcher is, for example, a consortium of industry people so as to allow an industry to self-regulate, this go somewhat better, for a time, until enough James Taggarts and Oren Boyles get enough power and influence so as to corrupt the "noble cause" of self regulating and keeping in check "bad actors".

So trouble happens.

Which leaves government (be it local, state or federal) to step in as a "watcher". But they are open to the same level of corruption.

So trouble happens.

Why? Because power corrupts.

But is the solution to say forget government, "the market" will fix all our ills? Give us more "freedom" to do ills? And if you aren't saying the market will fix the ills, then who or what will?

Seems to me, each level I just mentioned has a place in society. Some industry doesn't need regulation. Some can self-regulate. Some regulated locally, some nationally, etc. What's wrong with that system? Can't we call that common sense capitalism?

I mean, the original capitalistic thinker saw the importance of government, right?

"It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people."

The questions isn't if capitalism needs government. Surely it does, imo. The more interesting question is, "Which government?"

 

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

[Kak]

I think if the founding fathers included a clause that forbid vote buying with other's private property, we'd have as close to a perfect system as possible.

I've never been able to totally make the leap to an-cap, though I respect their ideals. I'm stuck over here in minarchism.

Meh, they are one in the same. Pipe dreams for all of the first world countries. Only realistic in the near future in the form of seasteads, contractual microstates and charter cities.

My only true vote is where I choose to live. I will choose what is best for me and my family. We are only a hop skip and a jump in the direction of collectivism before there are better options for freedom loving entrepreneurs wanting access to large markets.

Beyond that... My politics are "lover of freedom that can think outside of the American political box." An old Ron Paul Republican.

 

[Kak]

Show me a single example of a successful society which lacked a government

Brother, no one has ever, in history, given it a chance.

Government on the other hand has had ample opportunity to prove its worth.

I can draft what I believe would be an ideal society... But seriously that is a exercise in futility. It isn't happening.

Americans should start asking more questions, be slower to accept the status quo and finally stand up for what is right. We need more true leaders in this world. Not elected bozos with dynastic money.

 

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

[Primeperiwinkle]

Actually I have been to a cocktail party with Steve Forbes. It was very nice.

I hurt myself laughing. Your humor is appreciated even if I haven’t been listening to the whole convo.. because..

*puts down four bowls of chips, two bowls of salsa

Have you guys started reading the next chapters yet?!?!? I have!!!

And I WAS RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING!!!

Soooo impressed with my powers of deduction right now.. oh yeaaa..

*happy dance

 

[MTEE1985]

I look at it the same way I would look at a science experiment. If X doesn’t work, you try Y. In this case, history is littered with examples of power hungry governments being the demise of a country. Poverty, crime, etc historically follows.

Two can play this game.

Show me a single example of a successful society which lacked a government.

That’s being a bit extreme.

@Kak knows that a “leaderless society” is absurd and he isn’t saying that. He is saying that we can indisputably point to countries and societies where the government was/is the destroyer. If we know that isn’t the answer, then logically something toward the other end of the spectrum could be.

Best example I can think of though is an equity ownership country club. Day to day there is little bureaucratic bullshit. If something comes up that requires payment, the members all vote and if it passes they split the cost evenly amongst themselves.

Contrasted to where Atlas Shrugged and the current US appetite appears to be headed which is: We will tell you what is best for you, then we will tell you how much you are paying. Oh, and if you’re an especially valuable member of our society you get charged much more.

As the economic freedoms of corporations and individuals are chiseled away they will look elsewhere to take their production and investments. Hell, even Apple, one of the SJW’s favorite companies kept most of its cash overseas and still keeps a substantial sum there.

Getting back to the book and how it relates remains to be seen. Up to this point, Rearden and Dagny are still hard at work and making things happen despite the obstacles. Francisco, through the mines, appears to be giving everybody the middle finger for meddling in his business. It will be interesting to see what transpires after the government official threatened Rearden to sell the formula to his metal or else. Will they come for it leaving Rearden no choice but to keep a better, cheaper product out of the market?

 

[broswoodwork]

I guess it depends on where you went to school...

I see a lot of similarities between communists and libertarians. Both have a simple system that explains everything and is other than the world is now and would fix everything if only it were tried.

I've always kind of thought of libertarianism as a spectrum that straddles beliefs as disparate "total economic and social anarchy" to "a flat national sales tax would be nice". I'm probably not operating on a precise enough definition, but I think there's enough latitude to admit that some libertarians are pragmatic enough to be admitted into a reasonable adult discourse.