Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 181 (click to see context) from:
** Or maybe [[VideoGame/BioShock1 1960]].
to:
** Or maybe [[VideoGame/BioShock1 1960]]. Although in that case Andrew Ryan built Rapture in TheForties.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Or maybe [[VideoGame/BioShock1 1960]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 104 (click to see context) from:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 42,43 (click to see context) from:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 171 (click to see context) from:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 195 (click to see context) from:
*** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 194 (click to see context) from:
-----
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 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?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 170 (click to see context) from:
** 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 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 ScroogeMcDuck ComicBook/ScroogeMcDuck comic "A Financial Fable," and any one of [[Series/StarTrektheOriginalSeries Captain Kirk's]] [[KirkSummation summations]] when he "liberates" a planet.
Changed line(s) 174 (click to see context) from:
*** Not hypocritical, just interesting. Rand loved capitalism and individualism. Roddenberry hated capitalism but loved individualism (and ''TheFountainhead'' and ''The Romantic Manifesto'').
to:
*** Not hypocritical, just interesting. Rand loved capitalism and individualism. Roddenberry hated capitalism but loved individualism (and ''TheFountainhead'' ''Literature/TheFountainhead'' and ''The Romantic Manifesto'').
Changed line(s) 187 (click to see context) from:
** This troper always saw the question as a trap. The answer is obviously yes and both men know it's the answer. So why is Reardan asking? The government official might not be smart enough to to fully recognize what creek he's in but he's smart enough to notice he just got splashed. Also it seems unlikely Reardon was being honest about his intentions to sell the formula. That and as is mentioned in Rand's works the government are collectively too stupid to breathe.
to:
** This troper I always saw the question as a trap. The answer is obviously yes and both men know it's the answer. So why is Reardan asking? The government official might not be smart enough to to fully recognize what creek he's in but he's smart enough to notice he just got splashed. Also it seems unlikely Reardon was being honest about his intentions to sell the formula. That and as is mentioned in Rand's works the government are collectively too stupid to breathe.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** I'm sorry, you lost me at the point where you admitted you hadn't read the book. Shouldn't that be a preliminary step to getting involved in a discussion of it? Particularly as the book actually addresses your perspective, not briefly, but as a ''major theme''?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***** That goes back to (in the words of a troper above): "Dr. Ferris is a recognizable douche. I think he wanted to try out his new shiny thing." Sure, waterboarding might do the job in RL, but then Dr. Ferris wouldn't get to prove the "value" of his "secret project."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** You're kidding, right? She didn't miss the influence of money on politics ''at all.'' One, what do you think ''funds'' the "aristocracy of pull"? People throwing money or favors to politicians to pass policies that would help their businesses and cripple those of the competition. Two, she indicated pretty clearly she sympathized with those businesses who were forced to pay bribes to the government to keep the government from passing regulations that would put them out of business, saying that people who blamed such businessmen were blaming the victim, not the highwayman. Even Rearden had a "man in Washington" at one point (that's how future Head of Government Wesley Mouch got his start); he didn't like it, but he recognized it as necessary to doing business. Three, one of the points of the novel was that simple greed for riches was actually too innocent a motivation to explain the looters' actions; it was simply something they told themselves to avoid facing the reality that what they wanted was destruction and death.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 97 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Francisco didn't trick the investors. For quit some time he played the untrustworthy idiot of a of a company leader and the "investors" bought stock in his company and than passed legislation to make the stock more valuable and kill his competition. Except for the finial destruction of the company he openly made bad chooses and the looter piled on board anyway because they assumed that he would always make money even though they thought him too incompetent to run a company.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** After the metal started to become accepted as good by the market place, Readen's competitors pull strings to pass a law keep people from buying enough to be used, called ironically the "Fair Share Law". After that a market springs up where people sell their "fair share" to others and sponge money off what is basically a cap and trade system.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
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 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25 (click to see context) from:
to:
** There are parallels with ''Franchise/StarTrek'' here, in that both fictional universes rely on the concept of MagicFromTechnology and in both cases posit that such improbable technology holds the key to solving societal problems. As part of Galt's status as TheHero, he has the advantage of AwesomenessIsAForce, and the very laws of physics themselves will roll over and beg for him. This is also the concept behind many of the other strikers. They not only repudiate the laws of their society, but the laws of nature as well. It is why they can be presented as the foundation stones without which the society of the looters cannot stand. ''They'' are [[{{Ubermensch}} Übermenschen]] who can do what ''nobody'' else can thanks to TheSparkOfGenius that they possess.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Lots of trope cross-references, but that\'s because of all the tropes that apply.
Added DiffLines:
*** This is a common criticism of the novel. Galt and many of his fellows are virtual GadgeteerGenius[=es=] possessing TheSparkOfGenius and using it to create what is essentially MagicPoweredPseudoscience. Even if their inventions do fall into the hands of the looters, most likely the latter will be incapable of duplicating, or even comprehending, the technology. The looters are all carrying a VillainBall and the ApatheticCitizens are simply mediocre by nature, and thus incapable of rising to such stellar intellectual heights as the heroes. This is used to HandWave why an evil government run by CorruptPolitician[=s=] and CorruptCorporateExecutive[=s=] cannot simply reverse-engineer any of these great inventions and resell them under another brand despite the fact that [[ScrewTheRulesIMakeThem they would control all enforcement of patent laws]]. By necessity to the plot, the heroes' accomplishments must be impossible for the bad guys to exploit without the MartyStu that achieved these things in the first place to show them how to do so.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
new section
Added DiffLines:
* It seems like if there's one thing Ayn Rand missed, it is the effect of big money on politics. If rich businesspeople dislike the decisions of some officials, they'll "give campaign money" (buy votes) to others who would look after the business's interests better. In the real world, this effect is so well known that the annoyance (that causes The Strike in the book) would never happen.
** Even if it did, most super-business-folk would probably work even harder at political reform rather than causing the end of the world, because they live in the world. To them, it's a pretty nice place. A small valley in rural America doesn't really compare well.
** Even if it did, most super-business-folk would probably work even harder at political reform rather than causing the end of the world, because they live in the world. To them, it's a pretty nice place. A small valley in rural America doesn't really compare well.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 163 (click to see context) from:
** 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 ScroogeMcDuck comic "A Financial Fable," and any one of [[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 ScroogeMcDuck comic "A Financial Fable," and any one of [[StarTrektheOriginalSeries [[Series/StarTrektheOriginalSeries Captain Kirk's]] [[KirkSummation summations]] when he "liberates" a planet.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** This might not involve genuine dishonesty. Using Francisco as an example they might not be liars very often but they are more than happy to let you come to the wrong conclusion if it amuses them or furthers their ends. We never learn the details of Reardon metal, because it's unnecessary to the story. It entirely possible that he'd hand over the formula and it would be written in some way they couldn't decipher because they lack his genius. Or it would include a rare mineral that he had near exclusive ownership over, or some process that involved highly specialized machinery to build.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 181 (click to see context) from:
*** This is unlikely. Rand's protagonists don't tend to be blatantly dishonest.
to:
*** This is unlikely. Rand's protagonists (as best as I can tell) don't tend to be blatantly dishonest.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** This is unlikely. Rand's protagonists don't tend to be blatantly dishonest.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 138 (click to see context) from:
** Objectivism claims that [[Videogame/{{Bioshock}} "In the end, all that matters to me... is me. And all that matters to you... is you. It is the nature of things."]] The jist of it is that Objectivism claims that [[EvilCannotComprehendGood anyone doing a selfless thing has an ulterior motive for doing so that benefits themselves.]]
to:
** Objectivism claims that [[Videogame/{{Bioshock}} [[Videogame/BioShock1 "In the end, all that matters to me... is me. And all that matters to you... is you. It is the nature of things."]] The jist of it is that Objectivism claims that [[EvilCannotComprehendGood anyone doing a selfless thing has an ulterior motive for doing so that benefits themselves.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** This troper always saw the question as a trap. The answer is obviously yes and both men know it's the answer. So why is Reardan asking? The government official might not be smart enough to to fully recognize what creek he's in but he's smart enough to notice he just got splashed. Also it seems unlikely Reardon was being honest about his intentions to sell the formula. That and as is mentioned in Rand's works the government are collectively too stupid to breathe.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 177,178 (click to see context) from:
*** Yes, because if "the government" really was that stupid, it would've fallen eons ago.
*** Okay, so the story is really just badly written and relies on the antagonists being retarded.
*** Okay, so the story is really just badly written and relies on the antagonists being retarded.
to:
** If government was run by competent people, they wouldn't be the subject of countless jokes in other sources across media, and people who called government agencies for help wouldn't have the frustrating experiences they always have. Rand is hardly the first author to mock government officials or the first person to be diassatisfied with how politicians run things and answer questions. Like [[Literature/TheHungerGames Katniss Everdeen says]], stupid people ''are'' dangerous.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 138 (click to see context) from:
** Objectivism claims that [[Videogame/Bioshock1 "In the end, all that matters to me... is me. And all that matters to you... is you. It is the nature of things."]] The jist of it is that Objectivism claims that [[EvilCannotComprehendGood anyone doing a selfless thing has an ulterior motive for doing so that benefits themselves.]]
to:
** Objectivism claims that [[Videogame/Bioshock1 [[Videogame/{{Bioshock}} "In the end, all that matters to me... is me. And all that matters to you... is you. It is the nature of things."]] The jist of it is that Objectivism claims that [[EvilCannotComprehendGood anyone doing a selfless thing has an ulterior motive for doing so that benefits themselves.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 138 (click to see context) from:
** Objectivism claims that [[Videogame/Bioshock "In the end, all that matters to me... is me. And all that matters to you... is you. It is the nature of things."]] The jist of it is that Objectivism claims that [[EvilCannotComprehendGood anyone doing a selfless thing has an ulterior motive for doing so that benefits themselves.]]
to:
** Objectivism claims that [[Videogame/Bioshock [[Videogame/Bioshock1 "In the end, all that matters to me... is me. And all that matters to you... is you. It is the nature of things."]] The jist of it is that Objectivism claims that [[EvilCannotComprehendGood anyone doing a selfless thing has an ulterior motive for doing so that benefits themselves.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Objectivism claims that [[Videogame/Bioshock "In the end, all that matters to me... is me. And all that matters to you... is you. It is the nature of things."]] The jist of it is that Objectivism claims that [[EvilCannotComprehendGood anyone doing a selfless thing has an ulterior motive for doing so that benefits themselves.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Okay, so the story is really just badly written and relies on the antagonists being retarded.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Yes, because if "the government" really was that stupid, it would've fallen eons ago.
