NATIONAL REVIEW NEW HIT PIECE ON RAND

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Because she already saw a history where politicians were mostly virtuous: America's Founding Fathers. She wanted to create a world where the businessmen of the 19th and 20th century reclaimed their moral birthright. The theme of politician as hero is a hoary societal cliche. Businessmen as heroes was refreshing, new and the world as it might be and ought to be.

Jim

That's sounds great on the surface, but I think that by the standards that Rand used to condemn the fictional playwright in Atlas Shrugged, as well as non-fictional artists in reality, her smearing of politicians in her own art is "cowardly" and "sniveling." One shouldn't have to insert a "social message" into one's art which collectively smears all members of any profession as evil scoundrels. A truly Objectively heroic writer -- one who wouldn't deserve to die by asphyxiation in a tunnel accident -- would come up with the refreshing idea of vilifying no one. She would envision a world "as it might be and ought to be" where everyone, no matter what their profession, was perfectly heroic in every way (I mean, really, what type of evil must a person be afflicted with in order to claim that she was presenting the world as it might be and ought to be while prominently including evil characters? That's simply an admission that she believes that evil ought to exist prominently in one's ideal world.)

J

[Jonathan]

Tracinski's point was rather weak in the second installment. Defending Rand here is difficult unless one emphasizes that this is a work of fiction and just a story.

Right. And of course Objectivists can't make such a claim -- that Atlas Shrugged is "just a story" and that its author is not to be judged for unjustly punishing characters within her works -- after all of the moralizing about art and artists that Rand did in reality, as well as within her works of fiction. If Rand is not the punisher of the tunnel victims, but "reality" is, then the same principle should be true of all artists and their works, and therefore playwrights should not be judged as "sniveling" and "cowardly" when the "reality" within their plays punishes businessmen who are scoundrels.

Rand likes gimmicks and this is a gimmick. Tracinski's naturalism defense is bizarre, identifying Rand as author not with a selective God but with a naturalistic mirror. Not everything is defensible and Rand need not be defended at the price of turning her into Emile Zola.

Yeah, it really shouldn't be that difficult for Rand's fans and supporters to recognize that there were times, including in her art, that she lacked a sense of moral proportion and went overboard. One can admire the hell out of her, and her art, while admitting that she could sometimes be irrationally hateful.

J

[Jonathan]

Tendentious criticisms of Rand based on partial readings and non-essentials reveal much more about their authors' motives than anything else.

I get the impression that Steorts may have read all of Atlas Shrugged, and only read halfway through on a recent attempt at a second reading, but managed to miscommunicate that information to readers of his article on Rand.

Anyway, I would hope that people here would agree that tendentious criticisms of any artist based on partial readings and non-essentials reveal much more about their authors' motives than anything else, and that the first people that Objectivists should criticize is fellow Objectivists who make such criticisms based on only partial exposure to works of art.

J

[kiaer.ts]

Well, I consider myself an Objectivist and I do hold that Atlas Shrugged is "just" a story - which doesn't rule out saying it is a great story containing some wonderful philosophical arguments couched in terms of character dialog. To borrow a catchword from another thread, I find people who fantasize of gulches and who say "thank Galt" alarming.

Of course my objection to tendentious readings applies in all cases - that is why I explicitly repeated my signature line:

"A case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest."

[Martin Radwin]

If that's the expectation that "reality" and "the operation of the moral law" would impose, then shouldn't Rand also be judged as "sniveling" and "cowardly" (and as deserving of death by asphyxiation) for presenting all politicians as scoundrels? Why didn't she rise above the vicious world that she had experienced, and create novels in which politicians were virtuous?

But all politicians are scoundrels, without exception. There is no way, at least according to my libertarian ethical standards, that one can be an ethical politician. If an individual were ethical before becoming a politician, the very act of accepting political office and assuming the powers thereof would immediately render them a scoundrel. Politicans as a class are looters, parasites, and dictators, which is one of the central themes of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas, by contrast, people in business occupy the full range of moral stature, from lowest to highest. There are businessmen like Orren Boyle and James Taggart at one end; at the other end, there are businessmen who rise to the moral stature of Hank Rearden, businessmen who are scrupulously competent and honest to their customers and have never taken a penny from the government.

Rand's portrayal of all politicians and bureaucrats as scum was among the most enjoyable aspects of Atlas Shrugged, because it is so true. It's just too bad that, as Rand got older, she grew progressively less libertarian and more conservative, entrusting the same government that she portrayed as worthless scum in Atlas Shrugged to carry out a rational and just foreign policy. Because of Rand's evolution in this direction, the objectivist movement, via Peikoff and ARI, has been mostly taken over by neocon statists, instead of becoming a philosophical beacon for liberty.

Martin

[kiaer.ts]

If that's the expectation that "reality" and "the operation of the moral law" would impose, then shouldn't Rand also be judged as "sniveling" and "cowardly" (and as deserving of death by asphyxiation) for presenting all politicians as scoundrels? Why didn't she rise above the vicious world that she had experienced, and create novels in which politicians were virtuous?

But all politicians are scoundrels, without exception. There is no way, at least according to my libertarian ethical standards, that one can be an ethical politician. If an individual were ethical before becoming a politician, the very act of accepting political office and assuming the powers thereof would immediately render them a scoundrel. Politicans as a class are looters, parasites, and dictators, which is one of the central themes of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas, by contrast, people in business occupy the full range of moral stature, from lowest to highest. There are businessmen like Orren Boyle and James Taggart at one end; at the other end, there are businessmen who rise to the moral stature of Hank Rearden, businessmen who are scrupulously competent and honest to their customers and have never taken a penny from the government.

Rand's portrayal of all politicians and bureaucrats as scum was among the most enjoyable aspects of Atlas Shrugged, because it is so true. It's just too bad that, as Rand got older, she grew progressively less libertarian and more conservative, entrusting the same government that she portrayed as worthless scum in Atlas Shrugged to carry out a rational and just foreign policy. Because of Rand's evolution in this direction, the objectivist movement, via Peikoff and ARI, has been mostly taken over by neocon statists, instead of becoming a philosophical beacon for liberty.

Martin

I suppose you put George Washington at the top of your list of scum?

Let me guess. You are an anarchist?

Edited August 27, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

> Tracinski's naturalism defense is bizarre [Ted]

No, I don't think so, nor would I summarize it as a 'naturalism defense'. The following was crystal clear and an excellent point===>

Tracinski:

(") "a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts".

..[Rand] shows us the mother's solicitous care for her children—and how it is undone by her unprincipled support for an evil system...there is no way for reality to grant exceptions or show compassion. It just is what it is, and there is no one who can bargain or intercede—which is another central point of the novel. (")

What some readers thoughtfully think of as brutal, gleeful, or gratuitous is none of these. It is the inexorable working out of what happens.

In this case, the irony of how much she cares for, loves, wants to protect her children.

And then advocates exactly the policies which are a great danger to them - in psychological, and in this case in a very direct, physical way. Stop and think what Rand achieves viscerally, powerfully, poignantly by including this touch!!

This is great writing: This is what fiction can do, like a punch in the gut. To remove it, to 'pull your punches', would be like -not- having everyone die at the end of Hamlet or having Kira survive and start a venture capital firm in Silicon Valley.

[kiaer.ts]

Sorry, Phil, but Tracinski's argument falls flat. He says

But it is reality that does the punishing, by the inexorable logic of events. That's where Steorts gets it wrong. As the author, Ayn Rand is not in the role of God, but in the role of reality.

That is a formulation of naturalism. According to Rand, art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical values. Reality didn't kill those children, or the artist who may have had an ugly aesthetic, but who is not described as initiating force against anyone.

Who wrote Atlas Shrugged? Rand? Or logic inexorable?

What did Rand select here, and what values did that selection reveal?

The proper analogy is not the author as God or reality, but the author as narrative Erinys.

Forgive me for asking, but Is it mere coincidence that The Furies are female?

[Jonathan]

But all politicians are scoundrels, without exception. There is no way, at least according to my libertarian ethical standards, that one can be an ethical politician. If an individual were ethical before becoming a politician, the very act of accepting political office and assuming the powers thereof would immediately render them a scoundrel. Politicans as a class are looters, parasites, and dictators, which is one of the central themes of Atlas Shrugged.

Rand should have been more Romantic in her sense of life and she should have created heroic fictional politicians who, upon being elected to office, implemented your libertarian political ideology and refused to use their power in any way which initiated force against others. The fact that she didn't is proof that she was "cowardly" and "sniveling."

Whereas, by contrast, people in business occupy the full range of moral stature, from lowest to highest. There are businessmen like Orren Boyle and James Taggart at one end; at the other end, there are businessmen who rise to the moral stature of Hank Rearden, businessmen who are scrupulously competent and honest to their customers and have never taken a penny from the government.

Do you have any proof to back up that claim? Can you name one business person who has never accepted even a single penny from govenment, and who has never in any other way acted unscrupulously, and can you prove that he or she has never done so?

Rand's portrayal of all politicians and bureaucrats as scum was among the most enjoyable aspects of Atlas Shrugged, because it is so true. It's just too bad that, as Rand got older, she grew progressively less libertarian and more conservative, entrusting the same government that she portrayed as worthless scum in Atlas Shrugged to carry out a rational and just foreign policy. Because of Rand's evolution in this direction, the objectivist movement, via Peikoff and ARI, has been mostly taken over by neocon statists, instead of becoming a philosophical beacon for liberty.

By your reasoning Rand still ends up deserving of death by asphyxiation in a tunnel accident caused by bumbling politicians, because she supported some sort of statist method of violating people's rights rather than supporting libertarian anarchism.

J

Edited August 27, 2010 by Jonathan

[kiaer.ts]

Rand should have been more Romantic in her sense of life and she should have created heroic fictional politicians who, upon being elected to office, implemented your libertarian political ideology and refused to use their power in any way which initiated force against others.

She did. Judge Narragansett. He resigned.

[Martin Radwin]

If that's the expectation that "reality" and "the operation of the moral law" would impose, then shouldn't Rand also be judged as "sniveling" and "cowardly" (and as deserving of death by asphyxiation) for presenting all politicians as scoundrels? Why didn't she rise above the vicious world that she had experienced, and create novels in which politicians were virtuous?

But all politicians are scoundrels, without exception. There is no way, at least according to my libertarian ethical standards, that one can be an ethical politician. If an individual were ethical before becoming a politician, the very act of accepting political office and assuming the powers thereof would immediately render them a scoundrel. Politicans as a class are looters, parasites, and dictators, which is one of the central themes of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas, by contrast, people in business occupy the full range of moral stature, from lowest to highest. There are businessmen like Orren Boyle and James Taggart at one end; at the other end, there are businessmen who rise to the moral stature of Hank Rearden, businessmen who are scrupulously competent and honest to their customers and have never taken a penny from the government.

Rand's portrayal of all politicians and bureaucrats as scum was among the most enjoyable aspects of Atlas Shrugged, because it is so true. It's just too bad that, as Rand got older, she grew progressively less libertarian and more conservative, entrusting the same government that she portrayed as worthless scum in Atlas Shrugged to carry out a rational and just foreign policy. Because of Rand's evolution in this direction, the objectivist movement, via Peikoff and ARI, has been mostly taken over by neocon statists, instead of becoming a philosophical beacon for liberty.

Martin

I suppose you put George Washington at the top of your list of scum?

Let me guess. You are an anarchist?

No, I don't put George Washington anywhere near the top of my list of scum. Compared to the majority of presidents, he was certainly among the more honorable. Compared to Clinton, Bush, and Obama, he was almost a saint! But that's a pretty low bar to clear. Clinton, Bush, and Obama are all war criminals who should be tried for crimes against humanity, found guilty, and executed. George Washington's crimes, such as the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, were small by comparison. But he was certainly no paragon of virtue.

Yes, I now consider myself to be an anarchist. But no politicians in any system that has ever existed anywhere in the world could be considered to be anything other than scoundrels according to objectivist standards either. Rand was an advocate of a strictly limited government with no taxation, financed strictly through voluntary means. Since no such government has ever existed, all governments, along with the politicians who run them, violate objectivist standards of morality. Period.

Martin

[kiaer.ts]

No, I don't put George Washington anywhere near the top of my list of scum.

I am going to take Steorts' example and stop reading beyond this sentence.

[Martin Radwin]

But all politicians are scoundrels, without exception. There is no way, at least according to my libertarian ethical standards, that one can be an ethical politician. If an individual were ethical before becoming a politician, the very act of accepting political office and assuming the powers thereof would immediately render them a scoundrel. Politicans as a class are looters, parasites, and dictators, which is one of the central themes of Atlas Shrugged.

Rand should have been more Romantic in her sense of life and she should have created heroic fictional politicians who, upon being elected to office, implemented your libertarian political ideology and refused to use their power in any way which initiated force against others. The fact that she didn't is proof that she was "cowardly" and "sniveling."

Your analogy does not hold up. There really are scrupulously honest business people. There are no honest politicians, because honesty is precluded by the very job description of politicians. But, actually, as Ted Keer pointed out, she did portray Judge Narangansett, a scrupulously honest judge who was dedicated to serving the cause of justice and violating noone's rights. When he found that he couldn't do this any longer, he quit. In real life, there are no such judges either, because all judges are required to uphold the nation's laws, no matter how unjust, including such abominations as the many victimless crime laws. Any judge who refused to be involved in prosecuting people for violating these laws would be removed from the bench. And any judge who was involved in prosecuting people for violating these laws is a scoundrel, according to objectivist and libertarian standards.

Whereas, by contrast, people in business occupy the full range of moral stature, from lowest to highest. There are businessmen like Orren Boyle and James Taggart at one end; at the other end, there are businessmen who rise to the moral stature of Hank Rearden, businessmen who are scrupulously competent and honest to their customers and have never taken a penny from the government.

Do you have any proof to back up that claim? Can you name one business person who has never accepted even a single penny from govenment, and who has never in any other way acted unscrupulously, and can you prove that he or she has never done so?

Are you joking? The world is literally full of small business owners who are honest and have never taken any money from the government. My father owned a liquor store for five years in Los Angeles. During those five years, he never once acted unscrupulously toward any of his customers or took any money from the government. Unless you want to argue that all business people are using subsidized government roads or other infrastructure. But of course it's impossible to exist at all without using government roads, since government has a monopoly on the provision of roads. In any case, even if a businessman is receiving some government money or other subsidies, he is also paying many forms of taxes. So unless he is receiving more in government money than he is paying, he is a net victim of government and has nothing for which to apologize according to libertarian/objectivist ethics. And the majority of business people pay more in taxes than they receive in government subsidies.

Rand's portrayal of all politicians and bureaucrats as scum was among the most enjoyable aspects of Atlas Shrugged, because it is so true. It's just too bad that, as Rand got older, she grew progressively less libertarian and more conservative, entrusting the same government that she portrayed as worthless scum in Atlas Shrugged to carry out a rational and just foreign policy. Because of Rand's evolution in this direction, the objectivist movement, via Peikoff and ARI, has been mostly taken over by neocon statists, instead of becoming a philosophical beacon for liberty.

By your reasoning Rand still ends up deserving of death by asphyxiation in a tunnel accident caused by bumbling politicians, because she supported some sort of statist method of violating people's rights rather than supporting libertarian anarchism.

Jonathan, you're just being silly now. I never argued that the passengers of the Comet deserved death by asphyxiation. And neither did Rand. The point of the tunnel scene is that the passengers supported a system which produced a chain of events which culminated in the tunnel disaster, not that they deserved to die. And if you can find anything I've ever posted which suggests that people who disagree with me politically deserve to die via asphyxiation or any other method, please go ahead and post it!

Martin

[kiaer.ts]

Rand said that there was not one "innocent" person awake on that train. In real life, there are innocent victims too. Had Rand included "innocent" victims, she would not be open to the accusation that she thought their deaths were deserved.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Are We "Surrounded by Evaders"?

> Had Rand included "innocent" victims, she would not be open to the accusation that she thought their deaths were deserved. [Ted]

And that's the real problem. Now that I've had a chance to reread the "tunnel disaster" section, it's not so much that that portion is badly written or selected given the metaphysics of her fictional universe, but that section is perhaps the starkest reminder of something wider:

"Atlas" is an imaginary world in which things have gone so far downhill that the culture, the people are significantly worse - in spirit, in premises, in educational indoctrination, in level of rationality - than they are in the world of 2010: The world of Atlas provides many stark, rather simple, novelistic examples of those who do not use their minds properly, reinforcing the declared theme of the book, "the role of the mind in man's existence."

Given the length of the book, one can't have too many 'middle of the road' or largely innocent cases of misuse of the mind. There is not space to parse forms of honest error. You have a society which is almost like what Rand must have taken Russia to be: almost no decent, cognitively conscientious people.

Notice the second sentence of this passage from just before the train enters the tunnel: "As the tunnel came closer, they [passengers] saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn."

That captures "the masses" in this book: They do not know and do not care to learn how to use their reason properly. It is willful, chosen. The forms which this take vary.

The problem is that creating such a universe is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it is perfectly permissible to create a world which departs somewhat from the real one. But on the other hand, you don't want to do it in a way that makes a major false statement about human psychology, about human nature, that looks down on most people in the way it does.

Rand's malevolent projection of people as a herd of self-blinded, evading masses doesn't actually reflect the real world. It's a smear, a slander on the human race: Even in a dictatorship, probably even in the Russia she lived in, and the communist "slave states", people were more confused than they were "evaders." And the policies of their leaders were to -keep- them confused.

Rand in "Atlas" does not create a world in which honest error plays a very large part and too often she -- and fans of the book and of Objectivism -- acted and felt as if honest error were very much the exception. Especially on errors of a 'certain magnitude'.

But that is wrong. Error and confusion are as perennial as the grass. I wonder if that is in part (along with his altruism and bad philosophy) what people like Steorts are reacting to and in his case a difference he senses in the people of "The Fountainhead" and a world in which people are less corrupt, less villainous, less consciously choosing not to think.

In a way, it's good the Peikoff/Kelley split came up over basically this issue of human nature -- statistically good? statistically bad? (whether it be libertarians as a group or any other concrete manifestation).

It has to be very specifically addressed and grappled with. Time to stamp the false view out of association with Objectivism. And to criticize any malevolence that Rand herself allowed into her view of people.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

Subject: Are We "Surrounded by Evaders"?

> Had Rand included "innocent" victims, she would not be open to the accusation that she thought their deaths were deserved. [Ted]

And that's the real problem. Now that I've had a chance to reread the "tunnel disaster" section, it's not so much that the sequence is badly written or selected given the metaphysics of her fictional universe, but that scene is perhaps the starkest reminder of something wider:

"Atlas" is an imaginary world in which things have gone so far downhill that the culture, the people are significantly worse - in spirit, in premises, in educational brainwashing, in rationality - than they are in the world of 2010: The world of Atlas provides many stark, rather simple, novelistic examples of those who do not use their minds properly, reinforcing the declared theme of the book, "the role of the mind in man's existence."

But, given the length of the book, one can't have too many 'middle of the road' or largely innocent cases of misuse of the mind, of honest error. You have a society which is almost like what Rand must have taken Russia to be: almost no decent, cognitively conscientious people.

Notice the second sentence of this passage from just before the train enters the tunnel: "As the tunnel came closer, they [passengers] saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn."

That captures "the masses" in this book: They do not know and do not care to learn how to use their reason properly. It is willful, chosen. The forms which this take vary.

The problem is that creating such a universe is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it is perfectly permissible to create a world which departs somewhat from the real one. But on the other hand, you don't want to do it in a way that makes a major false statement about human psychology, about human nature, that looks down on most people in the way it does.

Rand's malevolent projection of people as a herd of self-blinded, evading masses doesn't actually reflect the real world. It's a smear, a slander on the human race: Even in a dictatorship, probably even in the Russia she lived in, and the communist "slave states", people were more confused than they were "evaders." And the policies of their leaders were to -keep- them confused.

Rand in "Atlas" does not create a world in which honest error plays a very large part and too often she -- and fans of the book and of Objectivism -- acted and felt as if honest error were verymuch the exception on errors of a 'certain magnitude' .

But it isn't. Error and confusion are as perennial as the grass. I wonder if that is in part (along with his altruism and bad philosophy) what people like Steorts are reacting to and in his case a difference he senses in the people of "The Fountainhead" and a world in which people are less corrupt, less villainous, less consciously choosing not to think.

In a way, it's good the Peikoff/Kelley split came up over basically this issue of human nature -- statistically good? statistically bad? (whether it be libertarians as a group or any other concrete manifestation).

Time to stamp the false view out of association with Objectivism...and to criticize any malevolence that Rand herself allowed into her view of people.

I am not sure I agree that the masses are portrayed so negatively. How about the people who showed up to cheer the running of the John Galt line or the train crews and other workers who disappeared in the night, or the people who, later in the book, attacked politicians who called for sacrifice?

[anthony]

Yes, the lack of moral gradient is central to the world of Atlas, when all the chickens have come home to roost.

By then, I think Rand was saying, there can be no more innocence, or ignorance.

You are either with us, or...well, you're dead.

There could well be an element of 'malevolent Universe of people', that stands in stark contrast to her 'benevolent Universe' premise.

What we know as mental laziness by most people, a lot of the time, receives harsh treatment. As a literary technique, the contrast between the shining lights of Reason, and all the small-minded rest, is a very strong one. But somewhat disturbing.

That's a thought provoking and incisive essay, Philip.

Tony

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Malevolence, continued

> I am not sure I agree that the masses are portrayed so negatively. How about the people who showed up to cheer the running of the John Galt line or the train crews and other workers who disappeared in the night, or the people who, later in the book, attacked politicians who called for sacrifice? [Ted]

It was never supposed to be literally everybody - either in the world of the novel or in real life, but her view and the implicit view of too many (the majority of?) Objectivists of honesty and the choice to use one's mind viewed as a -statistical rarity-. And a view of contempt for, lack of identification or any empathy with, lack of even an attempt to try to reach or interact much with, the overwhelming bulk of what Samuel Clemens as he aged and grew crotchety came -- half in jest perhaps, half in earnest -- to call the "damned human race".

And Peikoff and others did not leaven or qualify this attitude as much as Rand did when she spoke glowingly of the difference between the American sense of life and that of other countries, just as one example.

But Rand seems to have not thought much of the great mass of men. Sort of like Diogenes, apparently, it would have taken a massive hunt with powerful searchlights to find the occasional honest man in hiding somewhere.

> Rand said that there was not one "innocent" person awake on that train. [Ted]

By the way, in rereading the tunnel section, I don't see anywhere that she said none of the passengers were "innocent", or even used that word. Just before they go into the tunnel, and just after the passage I quoted about seeing Wyatt's Torch, there is only this:

"It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those whoe would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them."

I like the alternative "guilty or reponsible". Someone can make an honest error and thus be morally innocent, but because he is negligent or stupid or unaware he can still be responsible.

PS, who are you referring to here?--> "the people who, later in the book, attacked politicians who called for sacrifice? "

Edited August 28, 2010 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

Subject: Malevolence, continued

> I am not sure I agree that the masses are portrayed so negatively. How about the people who showed up to cheer the running of the John Galt line or the train crews and other workers who disappeared in the night, or the people who, later in the book, attacked politicians who called for sacrifice? [Ted]

It was never supposed to be literally everybody - either in the world of the novel or in real life, but her view and the implicit view of too many (the majority of?) Objectivists of honesty and the choice to use one's mind viewed as a -statistical rarity-. And a view of contempt for, lack of identification or any empathy with, lack of even an attempt to try to reach or interact much with, the overwhelming bulk of what Samuel Clemens as he aged and grew crotchety came -- half in jest perhaps, half in earnest -- to call the "damned human race".

And Peikoff and others did not leaven or qualify this attitude as much as Rand did when she spoke glowingly of the difference between the American sense of life and that of other countries, just as one example.

But Rand seems to have not thought much of the great mass of men. Sort of like Diogenes, apparently, it would have taken a massive hunt with powerful searchlights to find the occasional honest man in hiding somewhere.

> Rand said that there was not one "innocent" person awake on that train. [Ted]

By the way, in rereading the tunnel section, I don't see anywhere that she said none of the passengers were "innocent", or even used that word. Just before they go into the tunnel, and just after the passage I quoted about seeing Wyatt's Torch, there is only this:

"It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those whoe would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them."

I like the alternative "guilty or reponsible". Someone can make an honest error and thus be morally innocent, but because he is negligent or stupid or unaware he can still be responsible.

PS, who are you referring to here?--> "the people who, later in the book, attacked politicians who called for sacrifice? "

Put this all together with the actions of one of Ayn Rand's major characters, Dagny Taggart. She shot a man to death, not in self defense, not because of the military necessities of a commando raid, but because he could (or would) not make up his mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

Rand should have been more Romantic in her sense of life and she should have created heroic fictional politicians who, upon being elected to office, implemented your libertarian political ideology and refused to use their power in any way which initiated force against others.

She did. Judge Narragansett. He resigned.

Sorry, but his resigning makes him "cowardly" and "sniveling." That's the objective interpretation. It's not me talking, it's reality. I'm just its messenger.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you're just being silly now. I never argued that the passengers of the Comet deserved death by asphyxiation. And neither did Rand.

Here's the relevant paragraph from Atlas Shrugged:

It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them.

In other words, if a playwright expresses in his art the view that businessmen are scoundrels, or any other view which Ayn Rand dislikes or disagrees with, and no matter how major or minor his disagreements with her, his ideas would make him "guilty" and "responsible" for anything which happened to him due, either directly or very indirectly, to government incompetence. If government incompetence can be said to be somehow linked to the cause of his death, then he got what he deserved for thinking the wrong thoughts.

That is a punishment fantasy.

One could just as well argue (or have "reality" in a novel argue) that an author who idolizes businessmen and promotes a completely unregulated, free market is "guilty," "responsible," and getting what she deserves if she is the victim of an accident caused by free-marketeers who had cut corners to save a buck, or due to safety precautions which were never observed because the government was prevented from mandating and enforcing them (and the author's fellow capitalists could tell her corpse that everything is fine and dandy because she has the right to sue now that the accident has made it obvious, and easy to prove in a court of law, that corners had been cut).

J

Edited August 28, 2010 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Put this all together with the actions of one of Ayn Rand's major characters, Dagny Taggart. She shot a man to death, not in self defense, not because of the military necessities of a commando raid, but because he could (or would) not make up his mind.

Actually, that's not quite accurate. The guard DID make up his mind. He chose to try to contact his "chief," which is what any intelligent guard would do when confronted with conflicting orders, but Dagny wouldn't let him do so. She wanted him to think for himself while pointing a gun at him and not letting him decide freely.

As I wrote in this post:

"The entire scene is about Dagny intimidating and threatening the guard, and then judging him as sub-human because he doesn't think for himself when being bullied and having a gun pointed in his face. "I order you to think for yourself, or I'll kill you! But you can only choose from the options that I've given you. Hurry up! Why aren't you thinking for yourself? You're despicable. You're less than an animal!" Blam!

"As the scene is written, Dagny made the guard her victim and then held him in contempt because he behaved like a victim."

J

[kiaer.ts]

I reject the view that the masses are in any way contemptible. You find a far higher proportion of cranks and criminals among Objectionists than you do among the general population. I offer Shayne Wissler, Luke Setzer, and Lindsay Perigo and their ilk as evidence of the prevalence of the "people are stupid" cancer rampant among Randians. Maybe one fifth to one third of the people on Objectivist fora make any sort of positive contribution such as writing reviews, offering scholarly remarks, or generally making their peers aware of things of value. G Smith, S Boydstun, and M Newberry come to mind as such among recent active posters. But the miserable company of skeptics and elitists and misanthropes and hole-pokers and haters loom over us far more malevolently than any masses. You know who you are.

I have had twenty five years of experience in union and blue-collar jobs. I would much rather sit next to any random former coworker of mine than a random Objectionist on a six hour train trip, mountain tunnel or not. I have lived with illegal immigrants from Indian villages in Mexico and Democrats and single mothers on the dole, and almost to a one they were better roommates and happier people than the vast majority of Randians I have met. Presented with a moral dilemma, the masses may be misled by priests and politicians, but presented with a rational moral analysis of the issue they will almost invariably make the right choice.

On the other hand, would anyone deny that rationalization is an Objectionist specialty?

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Don't Judge a Book by the Stains and Splatter on its Cover

> the miserable company of skeptics and elitists and misanthropes and hole-pokers and haters loom over us far more malevolently than any masses...I have had twenty five years of experience in union and blue-collar jobs. I would much rather sit next to any random former coworker of mine than a random Objectionist on a six hour train trip [Ted]

Ted, I sympathize and there is an element of truth to what you say. However, I think you have overstated the case: The issue is one of the sample size and the nature of the sample. Yes, I know that you may have additional small samples, but don't make the mistake of judging "Objectivists" in any large measure by the people who post on these discussion boards. Especially after they have been existence for a few years and the benevolence has been replaced by personal hostility and grudges. And too many of the better psyches have become disgusted and either left or just lurk.

The level of knowledge of the philosophy, social skills, psychological balance is much better on average for example at summer conferences. And, as someone who has started campus clubs and community clubs in the East, Midwest, and West Coast, I can also tell you that most Objectivists are far better balanced and integrated personalities than a number of those who like to post a hundred times a week and tear down others. Remember that Objectivism attracts for good reasons but it also attracts people who want to feel superior, who want a stick to beat the world, who are Nietzscehans, who want to feel like everyone else is their inferior, who are on a power trip or want to impress people or feel like they are big froggie in a tiny rivulet.

I've met a lot of wonderful people among Oists over the years. Remember that these lists tend to not be moderated, so there is a certain type of person drawn to them.

Not everybody, obviously, but the trolls and sloppy thinkers and "haters" tend to play a disproportionate role.

Think of trying to have a conversation in a bar, and a loud drunk comes over and keeps shouting in your ear because no one has bounced him or told him not to.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

An example of the kind of lowlifes that such lists attract would be the fact that some people will totally ignore the content and central point of my last post. And instead feel gleeful about the fact that, for example, I misspelled the word Nietzschean.