Atlas Shrugged - Week 4: Ch 7 & 8

[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.

[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

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

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.

I think the answer to the question “what is the greatest gift you can give to others?” is.. your life.

At one point Hank despairs and discusses his life’s blood being spent.. all great achievements take that.

 

[BizyDad]

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.

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

Who got triggered though?

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 would love to see because I haven't said it.

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 think the answer to the question “what is the greatest gift you can give to others?” is.. your life.

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.

 

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

[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.

 

[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?

 

[GigMistress]

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've read the whole book more than once, but will be careful not to give anything away. What you say here has always been the sticking point for me. It's very easy to divide people into the heroic captains of industry and the weasely socialistic types who are breaking everything while reading, but that is in large part because Rand has created characters very narrowly. Jim Taggart never has an honorable thought; EVERY producer believes his word is his bond.

In the real world, of course, we have humans. And some of the very successful humans undeniably use what liberty they have (and some they don't) to do serious harm to others for their own profit. Some people (even politicians) who want to protect against those abuses have fair points, though often imperfect solutions.

I think those of us who spent a lot of our early lives tripping over people who knew less than we did (or next to nothing) but were nonetheless very sure about the structures they needed to impose on us find it very seductive--one of the reasons I've read the book more than once was that it helped inspire me to step over and around the human obstacles to progress. But, there's no denying that the picture it paints is too simplistic and too black and white.

I have often wondered whether that was the flaw it is today when the book was written. Certainly, long long ago businesses that didn't act with integrity often failed and a businessman's reputation was his chief bit of marketing--I'm talking about the days when communities were small and individual business owners personally known. That seems to become less and less true as businesses grow to monoliths and the humans involved are remote to us, which makes me question how well these concepts actually translate to a world in which poor ethics, dropping the ball, offering shitty products, etc. no longer seems to do much (if any) harm to a business once it has grown to a certain point.

 

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

[Kruiser]

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.

It is also possible that one can be very pro-capitalist, very pro-freedom, and still consider libertarianism to be entirely inadequate.

Adam Smith sure wasn't libertarian. Nor were the founders.

 

[broswoodwork]

Nor were the founders.

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?

 

[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.

[Kruiser]

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?

I don't know. I've always just think of them as "the American founders." They saw themselves as inheriting the classical republican thought of ancient Rome, though they were all obviously influenced greatly by enlightenment thought.

It totally make sense that Jefferson might be one... he has always been my least favorite founder and had the most crazy and unrealistic views. The American economy had already moved past his romantic agrarian views when he was still advocating for them. He was also a huge fan of the French revolution.

The founders were not united in their thoughts. Madison was very different than Hamilton who was very different than Jefferson, etc.. For the most part, they were concerned with designing a republic that would last. Liberty was key, but it was an ordered liberty and the virtue of the citizenry was to be key. It was certainly not "total freedom in everything and the market will figure it out."

 

[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.

 

[Kruiser]

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.

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.

 

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

[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.

 

[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."

 

[Kruiser]

Great post. My thoughts exactly.

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

What's an "an cap"? Serious question.

 

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

[broswoodwork]

What's an "an cap"? Serious question.

Anarcho Capitalist. I think the term voluntarist may be interchangeable, but there probably is a subtle nuance in the mix.

 

[Kak]

What's an "an cap"? Serious question.

What you think a libertarian is.

Short for "anarcho capitalist."

 

[lludwig]

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.

And add this into the mix, Ayn Rand's beliefs are called Objectivism which is different than libertarianism.

Just to be clear in this discussion. Rand had different views than libertarianism although there are many similarities.

 

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

[Kruiser]

And add this into the mix, Ayn Rand's beliefs are called Objectivism which is different than libertarianism.

Just to be clear in this discussion. Rand had different views than libertarianism although there are many similarities.

I found this taxonomy of libertarianism on Rational-wiki. I have no idea if the site or list has any value. But at least whoever wrote it thinks Rand and the An Caps belong in the libertarian camp. Some of the names are pretty cool, though.

 

[lludwig]

But at least whoever wrote it thinks Rand and the An Caps belong in the libertarian camp. Some of the names are pretty cool, though.

I'll at least agree with you on that. They are in the same camp.

Just like socialism and communism are as well.

 

[broswoodwork]

I found this taxonomy of libertarianism on Rational-wiki. I have no idea if the site or list has any value. But at least whoever wrote it thinks Rand and the An Caps belong in the libertarian camp. Some of the names are pretty cool, though.

View attachment 28835

This looks like old school encyclopedia dramatica tier satire.

 

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

[reedracer]

This looks like old school encyclopedia dramatica tier satire.

Brilliant! Or a McSweenys list. I just found this over there, pretty much gets everything wrong in the right way.

Our Grimm Nation: Libertarian Goldilocks

Once upon a time, there was a young woman named Goldilocks. But, even though Goldilocks’s family was in the top 2% of earners in America, Goldilock...

www.mcsweeneys.net

LOL, "Don’t you think that all prostitution should be unregulated? Or do you hate freedom?”
I want to write a book of these kind of questions,

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Brilliant! Or a McSweenys list. I just found this over there, pretty much gets everything wrong in the right way.

Our Grimm Nation: Libertarian Goldilocks

Once upon a time, there was a young woman named Goldilocks. But, even though Goldilocks’s family was in the top 2% of earners in America, Goldilock...

www.mcsweeneys.net

LOL, "Don’t you think that all prostitution should be unregulated? Or do you hate freedom?”
I want to write a book of these kind of questions,

At least I know why she successfully gets into the head of frat boys.. Oy.

 

[G-Man]

Meant to respond to this on Friday and forgot.

@Primeperiwinkle - I'm only sticking with you at this point because I love grandstanding epic speeches. The characters are non-characters. They aren't real people. Also, I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand just hates pretty ladies. Doesn't seem to have the same resentment to pretty men though. Francisco D'Anconia is a dusky 1940s dystopian Gosling.

If you're ever up for discussing more speeches, let's discuss the movie Gettysburg. 3 hours of speeches and copious amounts of pasted on facial hair.

 

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

[Primeperiwinkle]

Meant to respond to this on Friday and forgot.

@Primeperiwinkle - I'm only sticking with you at this point because I love grandstanding epic speeches. The characters are non-characters. They aren't real people. Also, I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand just hates pretty ladies. Doesn't seem to have the same resentment to pretty men though. Francisco D'Anconia is a dusky 1940s dystopian Gosling.

If you're ever up for discussing more speeches, let's discuss the movie Gettysburg. 3 hours of speeches and copious amounts of pasted on facial hair.

I agree so much dude. I can’t possibly share all the reasons that these characters no longer ring true to me at all.. but yea. I would have stopped reading at this point if it weren’t for this discussion. Thank you for committing.

 

[G-Man]

I found this taxonomy of libertarianism on Rational-wiki. I have no idea if the site or list has any value. But at least whoever wrote it thinks Rand and the An Caps belong in the libertarian camp. Some of the names are pretty cool, though.

View attachment 28835

It's actually not as bad as I thought it would be when I saw rationalwiki.

Rationalwiki is the website version of that kid in the freshman dorms that's probably above average intelligence and regurgitates fashionable left wing talking points with an air of educated superiority. He's Rachel Maddow's smarter and imminently more hate-able kid cousin.

 

[StrikingViper69]

Meant to respond to this on Friday and forgot.

@Primeperiwinkle - I'm only sticking with you at this point because I love grandstanding epic speeches. The characters are non-characters. They aren't real people. Also, I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand just hates pretty ladies. Doesn't seem to have the same resentment to pretty men though. Francisco D'Anconia is a dusky 1940s dystopian Gosling.

If you're ever up for discussing more speeches, let's discuss the movie Gettysburg. 3 hours of speeches and copious amounts of pasted on facial hair.

interestesing... what makes you think Ayn Rand hates pretty ladies?

 

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

[lludwig]

interestesing... what makes you think Ayn Rand hates pretty ladies?

I don't get that assumption at all. Dagny is described as very attractive and a very strong female lead character.

 

[G-Man]

interestesing... what makes you think Ayn Rand hates pretty ladies?

A bit of sarcasm, but yeah, based on the way the characters are portrayed that seems to be the case. Dagny is attractive but is portrayed as being a good person almost in spite of her attractiveness.