Just re-started Atlas Shrugged

[Selene]

I was more asking why do they work for others. Of course things needed to be produced but if I was a professor of history on the outside and I had bankroll, courtesy of ragnar, and freedom from force, courtesy of the gulch's rules, annndd a community that appreciated what I did, I wouldn't work on someone else's farm, I would open a school where I would teach, or open a book store which only sold my books, etc

Damn Derek...there are a lot of conditions there...

[deanwins]

Derek,

In real, some people are better at making investment/business decisions than others. This results in them producing more of what the market desires, and others not being able to profitably make investment/business decisions. The latter people then have to give up the career of "making investment/business" decisions, and then hence have to be guided by the profitable decision makers in order to be able to make a living.

[Derek McGowan]

Selene,

Those are the conditions prsent in the gulch. I'm not asking a real world question, but one based on the book.

Dean, I understand your point in the real world. I also understand you point in the atlas world "down the line" when some businesses weren't money makers. I don't know exactly how long some of those folks had been in the gulch but it seemed that they choose employment rather than entrepreneurship rather quickly.

Anyways, just a question.... Back to the audio tomorrow and back to the story : )

[Selene]

...if I was a professor of history on the outside and I had bankroll, courtesy of ragnar, and freedom from force, courtesy of the gulch's rules...

My perception is that Ragnar's retribution list is quite short and does not encompass about 70% of the Gulch residents...

[Brant Gaede]

Derek,

In real, some people are better at making investment/business decisions than others. This results in them producing more of what the market desires, and others not being able to profitably make investment/business decisions. The latter people then have to give up the career of "making investment/business" decisions, and then hence have to be guided by the profitable decision makers in order to be able to make a living.

Sad to say a lot of that is caused by being regulated and taxed into employment slavery.

--Brant

[deanwins]

Brant, Yea... I for example would like to start many businesses, but chose not to due to regulatory burden, tax burden, and tort case burden. I sure as hell don't want to deal with all of that. I have a dream of one day starting a city that somehow is a special administrative region like Hong Kong where the Feds permit the city to have its own special rules on self responsibly (retirement, safety, healthcare, food & drugs, etc).

How to get all of the individualists to move there though? If you build it they will come? Well, I still need to hash out the government policies. Rand's gulch is supposed to have such a government, so that wouldn't be a reason for people to be employees. But I agree that it is a form of slavery in the US... slavery to special interest groups like big businesses.

[Selene]

I have a dream of one day starting a city that somehow is a special administrative region like Hong Kong where the Feds permit the city to have its own special rules on self responsibly (retirement, safety, healthcare, food & drugs, etc).

Glenn Beck has a project like that in the works...

[anthony]

Funny, I have never seen Galt's Gulch as the model of a perfect society, with government and individual rights - and I can't see Rand meaning it as such, when the novel ends with "We are going back to the world". Rather, it's a highly individualist crew of comrades taking a breather in a safe haven before going back to complete their work, I think.

[Derek McGowan]

Funny, I have never seen Galt's Gulch as the model of a perfect society, with government and individual rights - and I can't see Rand meaning it as such, when the novel ends with "We are going back to the world". Rather, it's a highly individualist crew of comrades taking a breather in a safe haven before going back to complete their work, I think.

good point

[BaalChatzaf]

Funny, I have never seen Galt's Gulch as the model of a perfect society, with government and individual rights - and I can't see Rand meaning it as such, when the novel ends with "We are going back to the world". Rather, it's a highly individualist crew of comrades taking a breather in a safe haven before going back to complete their work, I think.

that makes sense. If Galt's Gulch were perfect there would not be much reason for going back.

[Brant Gaede]

Funny, I have never seen Galt's Gulch as the model of a perfect society, with government and individual rights - and I can't see Rand meaning it as such, when the novel ends with "We are going back to the world". Rather, it's a highly individualist crew of comrades taking a breather in a safe haven before going back to complete their work, I think.

They did their work by going there and when the motor of the world stopped their work was done. Francisco, Ragnar and John went back and forth for different reasons--and the philosopher to run a diner. Now, are we talking about the same thing?

--Brant

[anthony]

Long time since reading it; I am hazy on the ultimate intent Rand had for her heroes - but remember the judge at work amending the Constitution? Who for?

Looked to me like the real work - starting 'the motor' over - was about to begin, in the end.

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

[BaalChatzaf]

Long time since reading it; I am hazy on the ultimate intent Rand had for her heroes - but remember the judge at work amending the Constitution? Who for?

Looked to me like the real work - starting 'the motor' over - was about to begin, in the end.

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

Intent? The producers go on strike and thus bring the entire rotten moochocracy down on the heads of every one. That was the Intent.

[Francisco Ferrer]

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

Rationality does not imply infallibility. There is a great deal about Atlas that I have trouble accepting, but I do not believe Rand supposed her heroes to have overcome all possibility of error.

Furthermore, the fact that the Gulch is a proprietary community does not mean the inhabitants could dispense with the concept of individual rights. Suppose X borrows Y's fishing rod for the day. At nightfall X returns and tells Y that he accidentally dropped the rod into a deep ravine; it is irretrievable. X promises to reimburse Y for the full cost.

"Fine," says Y. "That will be $1,000, payable in gold coins."

"Wha-a-at?! That was a cheap, five and dime store item. It couldn't be worth more than $25!"

X and Y can both be acting rationally and still have conflicting claims. Not even a wise landlord like Midas can prevent all disputes from arising.

[anthony]

Long time since reading it; I am hazy on the ultimate intent Rand had for her heroes - but remember the judge at work amending the Constitution? Who for?

Looked to me like the real work - starting 'the motor' over - was about to begin, in the end.

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

Intent? The producers go on strike and thus bring the entire rotten moochocracy down on the heads of every one. That was the Intent.

First, here - now the world!!

(Joking).

Baal, can you see these creators living out their lives farming?

[anthony]

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

Rationality does not imply infallibility. There is a great deal about Atlas that I have trouble accepting, but I do not believe Rand supposed her heroes to have overcome all possibility of error.

Furthermore, the fact that the Gulch is a proprietary community does not mean the inhabitants could dispense with the concept of individual rights. Suppose X borrows Y's fishing rod for the day. At nightfall X returns and tells Y that he accidentally dropped the rod into a deep ravine; it is irretrievable. X promises to reimburse Y for the full cost.

"Fine," says Y. "That will be $1,000, payable in gold coins."

"Wha-a-at?! That was a cheap, five and dime store item. It couldn't be worth more than $25!"

X and Y can both be acting rationally and have conflicting claims. Not even a wise landlord like Midas can prevent all disputes from arising.

Ha. I imagine a different scene.

Midas tootling down the road in his car and John, driving behind, rams into him.

John: My fault - I'm paying your damages.

Midas: No, no! Serves me right for slowing so suddenly.

John: But I was day-dreaming about Dagny...this is on me. No argument!

Midas: Can't say I blame you... anyhow I'm sure my brake lights are malfunctioning. Tell you what, lets split the difference. Yeah?

Off they go contentedly.

When reality is their only judge, honest and rational men would seldom have prolonged differences, and benevolence and respect would take care of the rest.

Accidents and errors are inevitable, of course. But among such non-evasive individuals, it doesn't require individual rights to sort out any liability.

[Francisco Ferrer]

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

Rationality does not imply infallibility. There is a great deal about Atlas that I have trouble accepting, but I do not believe Rand supposed her heroes to have overcome all possibility of error.

Furthermore, the fact that the Gulch is a proprietary community does not mean the inhabitants could dispense with the concept of individual rights. Suppose X borrows Y's fishing rod for the day. At nightfall X returns and tells Y that he accidentally dropped the rod into a deep ravine; it is irretrievable. X promises to reimburse Y for the full cost.

"Fine," says Y. "That will be $1,000, payable in gold coins."

"Wha-a-at?! That was a cheap, five and dime store item. It couldn't be worth more than $25!"

X and Y can both be acting rationally and have conflicting claims. Not even a wise landlord like Midas can prevent all disputes from arising.

Ha. I imagine a different scene.

...

When reality is their only judge, honest and rational men would seldom have prolonged differences, and benevolence and respect would take care of the rest.

Accidents and errors are inevitable, of course. But among such non-evasive individuals, it doesn't require individual rights to sort out any liability.

Excellent. Now suppose that X's respect for Y is exceeded only by his respect for himself. He refuses for pay more than $25 for the lost fishing rod. And suppose that Y's spirit of benevolence does not extend to forgiving the loss of a family heirloom.

Can we still dispense with rights?

Yes, Midas could simply decree, "Everybody just get along, and we won't need all those silly rights." But he'd be a damned fool to expect a property dispute would never arise--even among the closest brothers.

[anthony]

But Francisco, you have started from the "benevolence and respect" end, and over-looked the rest: Reality, rationality and integrity.

The unreality of a simple fishing rod 'worth' $1000.

The irrationality of demanding what is not merited.

And if it is, let's just say, the only rod for thousands of miles (and so is worth the money) - the dishonesty of not making its value clear to the hirer, in advance.

These take precedence over benevolence and respect without negating them.

Among the Gulchers, the unquestioned assumption is -of course- that every individual there holds himself in highest esteem.

Rand's novel, her characters, plot and philosophy - portraying at least one of her credos, which is that rational men cannot fall out when all the facts are equally known.

[BaalChatzaf]

Long time since reading it; I am hazy on the ultimate intent Rand had for her heroes - but remember the judge at work amending the Constitution? Who for?

Looked to me like the real work - starting 'the motor' over - was about to begin, in the end.

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

Intent? The producers go on strike and thus bring the entire rotten moochocracy down on the heads of every one. That was the Intent.

First, here - now the world!!

(Joking).

Baal, can you see these creators living out their lives farming?

The had factories, and airport and a nifty power plant at the Gulch. And once Dagny joined in, she would have built a narrow gauge railroad for them.

[Francisco Ferrer]

But Francisco, you have started from the "benevolence and respect" end, and over-looked the rest: Reality, rationality and integrity.

The unreality of a simple fishing rod 'worth' $1000.

The irrationality of demanding what is not merited.

And if it is, let's just say, the only rod for thousands of miles (and so is worth the money) - the dishonesty of not making its value clear to the hirer, in advance.

These take precedence over benevolence and respect without negating them.

Among the Gulchers, the unquestioned assumption is -of course- that every individual there holds himself in highest esteem.

Rand's novel, her characters, plot and philosophy - portraying at least one of her credos, which is that rational men cannot fall out when all the facts are equally known.

The question is why would Midas invite as a guest someone like Y who puts a price on a fishing rod that far exceeds its market value.

We could also ask why he would invite someone like X who refuses to recognize, as many U.S. courts have (Florida Pub. Utils. Co. v. Webster), that "It is often impossible to place what is a current market value on such articles, but the law does not contemplate that this be done with mathematical exactness. The law guarantees every person a remedy when he has been wronged."

The very real possibility of Midas making an error of judgment in the selection of who should live in the Gulch is sufficient to demonstrate that in any society of more than a handful of people (even perhaps more than one person) there is a need for a system of laws governing how disputes should be decided. And such a system, if it is consistent with reality (man's nature), must be based on individual rights.

Capitalism is a system of voluntary contract. All contracts explicitly recognize rights, i.e., what is due to each party to the contract given certain conditions.

Midas was, apparently, a man who succeeded spectacularly in the capitalist system. But it strains all credibility to suppose he made million dollar deals merely on a handshake and his sense that the other party appeared rational.

[Brant Gaede]

Why try to make Galt's Gulch work? It's only supposed to work for the author (that is, novel) and it does. Similarly, why try to make Galt's motor work or going on strike work? The real purpose of the novel--it doesn't have to be the author's--is for the novelist to imply and posit right principles, to provide food for thought. Deconstruct and reconstruct, which is probably more than the Ayn Rand even imagined much less intended. Take the character of John Galt. Nathaniel Branden was said by her to be John Galt "with a few flaws." (NB's testimony.) This is evidence she tripped over some of her own suppositions, but that was only on her, twisted up in her own contexts.

To be properly into Atlas Shrugged one needs to be also autonomously apart from it and more than it, not swept up and carried away never to be seen again as YOU.

--Brant

[anthony]

Why try to make Galt's Gulch work? .

To be properly into Atlas Shrugged one needs to be also autonomously apart from it and more than it, not swept up and carried away never to be seen again as YOU.

--Brant

Amen to that. It's not a love story, or a survival manual, the novel is an image of a concept of a very desirable actuality. Like so much of Rand's output, there're levels beneath levels. Between the "Romantic" and the "Realism" is no gap - unless you make it so, by taking away only a perceived sentimentalism and literalism. To get on top of the novel you have to gulp it down in one bite. You will survive for another day (promise!). Nibble at it, and you're done for.

[anthony]

But Francisco, you have started from the "benevolence and respect" end, and over-looked the rest: Reality, rationality and integrity.

The unreality of a simple fishing rod 'worth' $1000.

The irrationality of demanding what is not merited.

And if it is, let's just say, the only rod for thousands of miles (and so is worth the money) - the dishonesty of not making its value clear to the hirer, in advance.

These take precedence over benevolence and respect without negating them.

Among the Gulchers, the unquestioned assumption is -of course- that every individual there holds himself in highest esteem.

Rand's novel, her characters, plot and philosophy - portraying at least one of her credos, which is that rational men cannot fall out when all the facts are equally known.

The question is why would Midas invite as a guest someone like Y who puts a price on a fishing rod that far exceeds its market value.

We could also ask why he would invite someone like X who refuses to recognize, as many U.S. courts have (Florida Pub. Utils. Co. v. Webster), that "It is often impossible to place what is a current market value on such articles, but the law does not contemplate that this be done with mathematical exactness. The law guarantees every person a remedy when he has been wronged."

The very real possibility of Midas making an error of judgment in the selection of who should live in the Gulch is sufficient to demonstrate that in any society of more than a handful of people (even perhaps more than one person) there is a need for a system of laws governing how disputes should be decided. And such a system, if it is consistent with reality (man's nature), must be based on individual rights.

Capitalism is a system of voluntary contract. All contracts explicitly recognize rights, i.e., what is due to each party to the contract given certain conditions.

Midas was, apparently, a man who succeeded spectacularly in the capitalist system. But it strains all credibility to suppose he made million dollar deals merely on a handshake and his sense that the other party appeared rational.

Well, sure. In reality, in the context of any community of men and women at large, I have nothing to argue about what you say.

But we are at cross-purposes here, so I need to ask:

a. Was there (in fictional actuality) individual rights per se, implemented in Galt'sGulch?

b. Whether they were or not, would they be essential here, considering Rand's core emphasis on a rational morality, from which the rights are derived - and what gives them their purpose?

If you have evidence that GG was meant as a blueprint for a greater society, incorporating individual rights, rule of objective law and minimal government - rather than a tight group of the most rationally selfish individuals, finding some peace for a while before returning - please show me.

[anthony]

Long time since reading it; I am hazy on the ultimate intent Rand had for her heroes - but remember the judge at work amending the Constitution? Who for?

Looked to me like the real work - starting 'the motor' over - was about to begin, in the end.

It was their life in the Gulch where I've had big arguments. I could not accept that the most rational people (exaggeratedly) in the country - would need individual rights, as many O'ists claim. Midas owned the property, and everyone abided by his conditions. Roughly-equally rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long. And the plan was not to be there long to my mind.

Intent? The producers go on strike and thus bring the entire rotten moochocracy down on the heads of every one. That was the Intent.

First, here - now the world!!

(Joking).

Baal, can you see these creators living out their lives farming?

The had factories, and airport and a nifty power plant at the Gulch. And once Dagny joined in, she would have built a narrow gauge railroad for them.

After which, what? All imaginary supposition, of course.

We are not going to 'know' until sometime in future, a bold philosopher-novelist writes the Sequel:

"ATLAS RISING": 'The Return'.

I'm certain it will be written. And I am damn certain that Rand geared the novel's finale to that hope-filled, new beginning.

When the people of the nation will be only too pleased for the producers and creators to return.

"The road is cleared" said Galt. "We are going back to the world".

[Francisco Ferrer]

Well, sure. In reality, in the context of any community of men and women at large, I have nothing to argue about what you say.

But we are at cross-purposes here, so I need to ask:

a. Was there (in fictional actuality) individual rights per se, implemented in Galt'sGulch?

b. Whether they were or not, would they be essential here, considering Rand's core emphasis on a rational morality, from which the rights are derived - and what gives them their purpose?

If you have evidence that GG was meant as a blueprint for a greater society, incorporating individual rights, rule of objective law and minimal government - rather than a tight group of the most rationally selfish individuals, finding some peace for a while before returning - please show me.

a. To answer this, we only have refer to Atlas. Mulligan says,

We are not a state here, not a society of any kind – we’re just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man’s self-interest. I own the valley and I sell the land to the others, when they want it. Judge Narragansett is to act as our arbiter, in case of disagreements. He hasn’t had to be called upon, as yet. They say that it’s hard for men to agree. You’d be surprised how easy it is – when both parties hold as their moral absolute that neither exists for the sake of the other and that reason is their only means of trade.

The inhabitants of Galt's Gulch do not treat the valley as unclaimed property but rather as real estate owned by Midas Mulligan. His control is never regarded by the strikers as accidental or arbitrary. In short, he is owner by right.

The fact that for an arbitrator the strikers choose a judge, who is spending his spare time restoring a document that in its original version was devoted to the preservation of individual rights, reveals that they acknowledge the need for a legal system and that such a system should be founded on man's rights.

b. Rand indicates that at the time Dagny enters the valley, Judge Narragansett had not been called on to perform any arbitration. But the fact that the strikers prepared for the possibility of disputes and chose as remedy an authority on constitutional law clearly spells out Rand's position that even her heroes are not immune to error and that in any civil society there must be a mechanism for adjudication. That the men and women of the valley have not, so far, disagreed, does not imply, as you suggest, that "rational men and women cannot disagree, at least not for long."

Let's be clear: Rand is not a utopian. She does not propose that her philosophy or a government based thereon is going to render a new Randian Man, a creature free from the possibility of moral corruption. She does not suggest that even Galt's Gulch has accomplished that.