History Headscratchers / AtlasShrugged

3rd Sep '17 7:38:45 PM hollowcity
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Three, even if the filthy rich heroes considered this an honorable, practical solution for them, what about the admirable, heroic characters who ''aren't'' filthy rich, like Cherryl, Jim Allen, and Eddie Willers? They and everyone like them don't have the resources to buy politicians for permission to live and work freely. What would they do if that was the acceptable way to survive?

to:

*** Three, even if the filthy rich heroes considered this an honorable, practical solution for them, what about the admirable, heroic characters who ''aren't'' filthy rich, like Cherryl, Jim Allen, and Eddie Willers? They and everyone like them don't have the resources to buy politicians for permission to live and work freely. What would they do if that was the acceptable way to survive?survive?
**** Die for being filthy moochers, or serve their betters like slaves until a moment of weakness allows them to demonstrate their superiority like Ayn Rand's philosophy demands. What a lot of people miss is that Ayn Rand's philosophy lifted a lot from Social Darwinism which was popular around that time. Actually it lifted a lot of stuff from other philosophers...
25th Jun '17 11:00:07 AM BuccoBabe
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** So what? Why should we assume that "aspiring research scientists" who can't get a job would be capable of replacing genius-level scientists? You don't have to believe in the "great man" theory to realize that not all scientists are equally capable.
29th Nov '16 7:56:15 PM mirisu92
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Or maybe [[VideoGame/BioShock1 1960]].

to:

** Or maybe [[VideoGame/BioShock1 1960]]. Although in that case Andrew Ryan built Rapture in TheForties.
29th Nov '16 7:54:49 PM mirisu92
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Or maybe [[VideoGame/BioShock1 1960]].
11th Jun '16 1:32:18 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Almost everybody has something to offer. I don't think I'll ever read ''Atlas Shrugged'', but I did read ''SwordOfTruth'' (all of it up to ''Confessor'') which deals with the same philosophy, though in a slightly more visceral manner. Objectivist or not, refusing your own brother the chance to become something other than the thing you despise the most in the world is a [[JerkAss dick move]]. Especially since I get the feeling this was the first time that brother made such a move, meaning that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

to:

** Almost everybody has something to offer. I don't think I'll ever read ''Atlas Shrugged'', but I did read ''SwordOfTruth'' ''Literature/TheSwordOfTruth'' (all of it up to ''Confessor'') which deals with the same philosophy, though in a slightly more visceral manner. Objectivist or not, refusing your own brother the chance to become something other than the thing you despise the most in the world is a [[JerkAss dick move]]. Especially since I get the feeling this was the first time that brother made such a move, meaning that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
28th Feb '16 9:22:24 AM Kalaong
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** A less charitable interpretation is that Galt (and [[PsychologicalProjection by extension Rand]]) is deliberately invoking the idea that a FinalSolution is the ''only'' way to create an Objectivist Utopia. Think about it: the people most capable of saving the world are instead championing the idea of selfishness as a virtue -- to the extent that they seem to ''want'' a [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ApocalypseHow/Class2 Societal Collapse]]. Galt and his compatriots are such blatant MartyStu characters who can intellectually run rings around the incompetent looters, from the lowest security guard to the most powerful politicians and businessmen. Yet they ''choose'' not to take advantage of their superiority and save the world, because that would be altruism, which in their philosophy is evil. Thus, like many historical tyrants (e.g. Hitler), it's do things their way or die horribly. Only, Rand takes it several steps further by designing the CrapsackWorld such that Objectivism is the ''only'' way to avert catastrophe. Those that will not play along need to die, because they're just getting in the way of progress.

to:

** A less charitable interpretation is that Galt (and [[PsychologicalProjection by extension Rand]]) is deliberately invoking the idea that a FinalSolution is the ''only'' way to create an Objectivist Utopia. Think about it: the people most capable of saving the world are instead championing the idea of selfishness as a virtue -- to the extent that they seem to ''want'' a [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ApocalypseHow/Class2 [[ApocalypseHow/Class2 Societal Collapse]]. Galt and his compatriots are such blatant MartyStu characters who can intellectually run rings around the incompetent looters, from the lowest security guard to the most powerful politicians and businessmen. Yet they ''choose'' not to take advantage of their superiority and save the world, because that would be altruism, which in their philosophy is evil. Thus, like many historical tyrants (e.g. Hitler), it's do things their way or die horribly. Only, Rand takes it several steps further by designing the CrapsackWorld such that Objectivism is the ''only'' way to avert catastrophe. Those that will not play along need to die, because they're just getting in the way of progress.
5th Oct '15 1:22:26 PM FF32
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There are several abridged versions out there: Howard Roark's speech at his trial at the end of ''Literature/TheFountainhead'' of course (though that's still ridiculously long despite being much shorter), Tony Stark's speech at his Senate hearing in ''Film/IronMan2'', the ComicBook/ScroogeMcDuck comic "A Financial Fable," and any one of [[Series/StarTrektheOriginalSeries Captain Kirk's]] [[KirkSummation summations]] when he "liberates" a planet.

to:

** There are several abridged versions out there: Howard Roark's speech at his trial at the end of ''Literature/TheFountainhead'' of course (though that's still ridiculously long despite being much shorter), Tony Stark's speech at his Senate hearing in ''Film/IronMan2'', the ComicBook/ScroogeMcDuck [[ComicBook/DisneyDucksComicUniverse Scrooge [=McDuck=]]] comic "A Financial Fable," and any one of [[Series/StarTrektheOriginalSeries Captain Kirk's]] [[KirkSummation summations]] when he "liberates" a planet.
21st Aug '15 11:01:40 AM Julia1984
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** One, for moral reasons. They worship honesty. They (correctly) believe it's dishonest to bribe people to give you things you haven't earned. They refuse to make a fortune any other way besides [[Creator/CarlBarks being smarter than the smarties, being tougher than the toughies, and square]] -- honestly earned wealth is a sign of virtue to them, while dishonestly earned wealth disgusts them. They pride themselves on being {{Honest Corporate Executive}}s who earn their fortunes honorably and honestly; they refuse to become {{Corrupt Corporate executive}}s who [[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney succeed through bribery]], blackmail, and [[ScrewTheRulesIHaveConnections connections]]. Shortly after they pass the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, Hank Rearden's employee reminds his struggling boss of all the dishonest, underhanded deals men have adopted to cope with it. Rearden despondently replies that he must not have the skills necessary to make the kind of "deals" required today; said employee assures him it's those very morals that make him a great businessman. When Jim uses the Anti Dog Eat Dog Rule to destroy competitor Dan Conway, Dagny is horrified and actually goes to Conway and offers to help him fight it. She's further disgusted by the "government subsidies" (really bribes) Jim later uses to make "profits," which in her opinion aren't profits at all because they aren't earned honestly. The heroes don't want money -- they want the freedom to earn money honestly, and they won't resort to dishonesty and evil is that's not possible.

to:

*** One, for moral reasons. They worship honesty. They (correctly) believe it's dishonest to bribe people to give you things you haven't earned. They refuse to make a fortune any other way besides [[Creator/CarlBarks being smarter than the smarties, being tougher than the toughies, and square]] -- honestly earned wealth is a sign of virtue to them, while dishonestly earned wealth disgusts them. They pride themselves on being {{Honest Corporate Executive}}s who earn their fortunes honorably and honestly; they refuse to become {{Corrupt Corporate executive}}s who [[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney succeed through bribery]], blackmail, and [[ScrewTheRulesIHaveConnections connections]]. Shortly after they pass the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, Hank Rearden's employee reminds his struggling boss of all the dishonest, underhanded deals men have adopted to cope with it. Rearden despondently replies that he must not have the skills necessary to make the kind of "deals" required today; said employee assures him it's those very morals that make him a great businessman. When Jim uses the Anti Dog Eat Dog Rule to destroy competitor Dan Conway, Dagny is horrified and actually goes to Conway and offers to help him fight it. She's further disgusted by the "government subsidies" (really bribes) Jim later uses to make "profits," which in her opinion aren't profits at all because they aren't earned honestly. The heroes don't want money -- they want the freedom to earn money honestly, and they won't resort to dishonesty and evil is if that's not possible.
21st Aug '15 10:59:58 AM Julia1984
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-----

to:

-----** Here is why Rand's rich businesspeople don't buy the protection/friendship of political allies:
*** One, for moral reasons. They worship honesty. They (correctly) believe it's dishonest to bribe people to give you things you haven't earned. They refuse to make a fortune any other way besides [[Creator/CarlBarks being smarter than the smarties, being tougher than the toughies, and square]] -- honestly earned wealth is a sign of virtue to them, while dishonestly earned wealth disgusts them. They pride themselves on being {{Honest Corporate Executive}}s who earn their fortunes honorably and honestly; they refuse to become {{Corrupt Corporate executive}}s who [[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney succeed through bribery]], blackmail, and [[ScrewTheRulesIHaveConnections connections]]. Shortly after they pass the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, Hank Rearden's employee reminds his struggling boss of all the dishonest, underhanded deals men have adopted to cope with it. Rearden despondently replies that he must not have the skills necessary to make the kind of "deals" required today; said employee assures him it's those very morals that make him a great businessman. When Jim uses the Anti Dog Eat Dog Rule to destroy competitor Dan Conway, Dagny is horrified and actually goes to Conway and offers to help him fight it. She's further disgusted by the "government subsidies" (really bribes) Jim later uses to make "profits," which in her opinion aren't profits at all because they aren't earned honestly. The heroes don't want money -- they want the freedom to earn money honestly, and they won't resort to dishonesty and evil is that's not possible.
*** Two, for practical reasons. They don't believe EvilPaysBetter in the long run. They know it's not practical to pay "a protection racket." They know that any such deals or favors they bought would come with strings attached. On an even playing field, they don't need the politicians' support or anything said politicians can offer; it's only the government's policies and restraints that would make buying the support of politicians necessary to do business, and they don't believe supporting that system would do any good. Galt compares it to a doctor breaking your arm and you paying that doctor to fix it. When Mr. Thompson tries to argue that he ''does'' have something to offer Galt -- his life -- Galt insists, "It's not yours to offer." From the heroes' perspective, their freedom is not the politicians' to offer, and supporting that claim by buying said freedom to operate would only harm them.
*** Three, even if the filthy rich heroes considered this an honorable, practical solution for them, what about the admirable, heroic characters who ''aren't'' filthy rich, like Cherryl, Jim Allen, and Eddie Willers? They and everyone like them don't have the resources to buy politicians for permission to live and work freely. What would they do if that was the acceptable way to survive?
29th Jun '15 6:56:48 PM ChrisW
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Rand was a believer in a "benevolent universe," the closest an atheist like her could get to acknowledging a God who can incorporate every single living creature in His plan. Her belief was that things happen for a reason, but without God as the reason, the tunnel sequence was the best she could do. The people on that train were on that train at that exact moment it led to disaster for a reason, but she can't make the reason clear because it removes God as the cause. God would know how and why every person onboard was there. A mere mortal couldn't. She can describe the effects, but ignores the cause.
This list shows the last 10 events of 182. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.AtlasShrugged