Just re-started Atlas Shrugged


Recommended Posts

I just began a new painting. At the end of the previous one I finished listening to a 6 hour lecture on the Apostolic Fathers, so i figured now would be a great time to get back to a classic.

Its still early, chapter 5 but I have several points that, now that I'm on this forum, I'd love to state.

One, her use of descriptions is fantastic and I'm jealousy

Two, I wonder how much of my love of the novel is derived from the audio books reader! If you havent heard him, he's great!

Three, when we hear about Nat Taggart, it is said that at one point he needed some money so he "mortgaged" his wife to a man who he didn't like for a loan. I feel like since Ayn Rand is famous for her strong women, I wish his wife would have said "You going to mortgage me? No, I'll mortgage you!" Like I feel like any women that was courted by such a strong man should have been incredibly strong herself. She should have had her own business and she could have bailed her husband out. I know Ayn Rand put that part in the story to show how strong Nat was but I would have loved to see another super strong woman in Dagny's line.

Four, I wonder why Dagny's brother was allowed to be so weak in the Taggart family. I feel like the father should have sent him to military school to grow a backbone!

Looking forward to everyday at the studio : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Three, when we hear about Nat Taggart, it is said that at one point he needed some money so he "mortgaged" his wife to a man who he didn't like for a loan. I feel like since Ayn Rand is famous for her strong women, I wish his wife would have said "You going to mortgage me? No, I'll mortgage you!" Like I feel like any women that was courted by such a strong man should have been incredibly strong herself. She should have had her own business and she could have bailed her husband out. I know Ayn Rand put that part in the story to show how strong Nat was but I would have loved to see another super strong woman in Dagny's line.

Derek,

That's a cool thought. I like it.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would believe that she would utilize the veil of history to make the Nat story work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found with audio books, the reader is almost as important as the story for me. I have disliked several books simply because I disliked the voice of the reader, only to realize much later that these were actually good books. Although I can't say the reverse is true.

I don't find Rand's female characters to be incredibly realistic overall. Or at least, most of her female characters are not women I would want to spend time with, not even Dagny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On chapter ten

1. So Eddie willers wasn't black in the book?! (guess the movie had an impact on me

2. Wyatt should have built pipelines and said to hell with the trains

3. I would appreciate an objectivist analysis of the conversation with mayor bascom. He and the guys he worked with seem less leeches/parasites and more like vampires, I.e. they attack with force and purpose, the only purpose of which is to drain the last of any life blood. Versus leeches who, in their attempts, at equalization, slowly suck energy out of a host

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. I would appreciate an objectivist analysis of the conversation with mayor bascom.

Got a page reference for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually listening to it, not reading Selene, but ill pinpoint it asap

Thanks Derek.

I have not forgotten about our chess conversation. However, it looks like we lost one of our potential player in RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually listening to it, not reading Selene, but ill pinpoint it asap

Thanks Derek.

I have not forgotten about our chess conversation. However, it looks like we lost one of our potential player in RB.

I've narrowed it down to chapter 10, section 2. Dagny and Rearden are in Rome Wisconsin to speak to the Mayor about the 20th century Auto company.

I'm guessing that Ayn Rand doesn't like a character such as the Mayor (or does she) but I want to know what is the Objectivist defense against someone such as he

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've narrowed it down to chapter 10, section 2. Dagny and Rearden are in Rome Wisconsin to speak to the Mayor about the 20th century Auto company.

I'm guessing that Ayn Rand doesn't like a character such as the Mayor (or does she) but I want to know what is the Objectivist defense against someone such as he

OK. I know where you mean. Thanks.

Starts on the bottom of page 274-278 [35th Anniversary Edition paperback]:

Mayor Bascom of Rome, Wisconsin, leaned back in his chair; ...

And ends with Dagny finding out about the attempt to kill Colorado.

I'll come back at once."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. I would appreciate an objectivist analysis of the conversation with mayor bascom. He and the guys he worked with seem less leeches/parasites and more like vampires, I.e. they attack with force and purpose, the only purpose of which is to drain the last of any life blood. Versus leeches who, in their attempts, at equalization, slowly suck energy out of a host

Not sure I can give a sanctioned "objectivist analysis" of the conversation with Mayor Bascom.

Appears he was a mini Attila without any Witch Doctor to guide him into the leech role.

I thought the real meat of the Bascom section was how Dagny handled the Bascom's:

"and the charming lady that is not your wife...."

Followed a few sentences down with this excellent exchange:

Dagny: "Don't ever get angry at a man for stating the truth."

Hank: "That particular truth was none of his business,"

Dagny: "His particular estimate of it was none of your concern or mine."

How many folks have you met in your life that are like the description of Mayor Bascom?:

Mayor Bascom smiled, looking at them in a manner of placid frankness. His eyes were shrewd without intelligence, his smile good-natured without kindness.

Amazingly great writer. Two (2) sentences that nail this type of person.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mayor Bascom smiled, looking at them in a manner of placid frankness. His eyes were shrewd without intelligence, his smile good-natured without kindness.

Amazingly great writer. Two (2) sentences that nail this type of person.

A...

You can meet them in church.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"and the charming lady that is not your wife...."

Dagny: "Don't ever get angry at a man for stating the truth."

Hank: "That particular truth was none of his business,"

Dagny: "His particular estimate of it was none of your concern or mine."

How many folks have you met in your life that are like the description of Mayor Bascom?

More to the point is the extent to which we share Hank Rearden's view. It is not just about sex, though there is that. On my blog, I reviewed God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. My blog address is always in my signature line in my emails. I just got an inquiry for a contract; the Hitchen's piece appeared; and the inquiry went nowhere. So, I edited "god is not Great" to make it explicit that these were Hitchens' views. But clearly, even so, there they are on my blog. That said, I have known born-again Christians who have similar stories. Corporate managers do not like anyone with strong beliefs about anything. They want non-entities. Anyway, I let Mayor Bascom get into my head. It happens, even to the best of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On chapter ten

1. So Eddie willers wasn't black in the book?! (guess the movie had an impact on me

2. Wyatt should have built pipelines and said to hell with the trains

3. I would appreciate an objectivist analysis of the conversation with mayor bascom. He and the guys he worked with seem less leeches/parasites and more like vampires, I.e. they attack with force and purpose, the only purpose of which is to drain the last of any life blood. Versus leeches who, in their attempts, at equalization, slowly suck energy out of a host

... and then Eddie realizes that he was always in love with her...

Pipelines compete against other carriers. When Atlas Shrugged was written, pipelines, railroads, barges, and trucking, were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission. (Summary here, but point your own browser to "pipeline regulation".)

3. Mayor Bascom was a pragmatist. He had a range-of-the-moment awareness. He took advantage of the situation with the original looters but clearly did not see the ultimate consequences. In that, he is a lesser sort of Cuffy Meigs, who said that there were still plenty of pickings in Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious that Selene and others (the three other sites I looked to for previously written analysis on the conversation) found the the most interesting part to be the Dagny, Rearden, "not your wife" stuff. Curious-er still, is the fact that I find nothing interesting in that portion but am still fixated on Mayor Bascom's actions with the motor company. Marotta has address this somewhat in hie response.

Basically I see the Mayor as somewhat akin to Richard Gere's character in Pretty Woman. He doesn't make money by producing anything, he actually makes money by destroying production (by taking a company, splitting it up, over leveraging it, pillage and plunder, etc) The Mayor said, and I wish I had a written copy of the text, something like "well isn't that what you buy a place like that for, to tear out everything that is left?" I probably just butchered the quote but you get the point.

My question is, what is the objectivist defense against such people? How to prevent a thriving company from being the victim of either a hostile takeover, or because some well meaning owner borrowed too much and has to lean on this scumbag for a few months, only to find out that the scum bag is now in control and hasn't a care for the future dreams of your company. If scum bag finds more value in raping the company vs production, what can you do in this environment of debt and public shares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mayor said, and I wish I had a written copy of the text, something like "well isn't that what you buy a place like that for, to tear out everything that is left?" I probably just butchered the quote but you get the point.

My question is, what is the objectivist defense against such people? How to prevent a thriving company from being the victim of either a hostile takeover, or because some well meaning owner borrowed too much and has to lean on this scumbag for a few months, only to find out that the scum bag is now in control and hasn't a care for the future dreams of your company. If scum bag finds more value in raping the company vs production, what can you do in this environment of debt and public shares?

Bascom:

Why does anyone buy any business? To squeeze whatever can be squeezed out of it,

There is no "objectivist" defense against such people.

Let the borrower beware as well as the buyer. Caveat emptor...

Caveat Emptor

[Latin, Let the buyer beware.] A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he or she is buying are "as is," or subject to all defects.

When a sale is subject to this warning the purchaser assumes the risk that the product might be either defective or unsuitable to his or her needs.This rule is not designed to shield sellers who engage in Fraud or bad faith dealing by making false or misleading representations about the quality or condition of a particular product. It merely summarizes the concept that a purchaser must examine, judge, and test a product considered for purchase himself or herself.

The modern trend in laws protecting consumers, however, has minimized the importance of this rule. Although the buyer is still required to make a reasonable inspection of goods upon purchase, increased responsibilities have been placed upon the seller, and the doctrine of caveat venditor (Latin for "let the seller beware") has become more prevalent. Generally, there is a legal presumption that a seller makes certain warranties unless the buyer and the seller agree otherwise. One such Warranty is the Implied Warranty of merchantability. If a person buys soap, for example, there is an implied warranty that it will clean; if a person buys skis, there is an implied warranty that they will be safe to use on the slopes.

A seller who is in the business of regularly selling a particular type of goods has still greater responsibilities in dealing with an average customer. A person purchasing antiques from an antique dealer, or jewelry from a jeweler, is justified in his or her reliance on the expertise of the seller.

If both the buyer and the seller are negotiating from equal bargaining positions, however, the doctrine of caveat emptor would apply.

This was certainly not a thriving business.

I did address Bascom as being an Attila without a Witch Doctor which was using Objectivist/Randian semantics.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did address Bascom as being an Attila without a Witch Doctor which was using Objectivist/Randian semantics.

Oh, I didn't get it....

Not a problem.

In her first [?] non-fiction book, For The New Intellectual, 1960/1961, she posited the three archtypes in society, Attila, the Witch Doctor and the Producer. The first essay which was the same as the title of the book was ground breaking.

She opined that the individual's perception of reality is replaced by their[Attila/Witch Doctor] "truth" as "superior to their own perception of reality.":

While Attila extorts their obedience by means of a club, the Witch Doctor obtains it by means of a much more powerful weapon: he preempts the field of morality.

She continues to develop this call to action by the "new" intellectuals.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Although Rand did not explicitly say this, I have always considered the intellectual to be the 4th archetype of people who make history in her categorization. She implies it so strongly, I believe it's there if you look. And it runs in direct correspondence to mind-body.

Attila is bad-guy leader (body).

Producer is good-guy leader (body).

Witch Doctor is bad-guy leader (mind).

Intellectual is good-guy leader (mind).

Attila and Producer reach the masses and change their lives through their bodies.

Witch Doctor and Intellectual reach the masses and change their lives through their minds.

Objectivist yin and yang duality. :)

Stepping outside of history, this is extremely useful in writing fiction. You can have characters oppose each other on essentials. The Producer is the hero and his nemesis or opponent Attila runs the bad-guy gang. Ditto for Witch Doctor and Intellectual.

Or you can use this as a throughline within the same character, moving one with Attila characteristics to giving them up and acquiring Producer characteristics (or vice-versa). Ditto for Witch Doctor and Intellectual.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real dichotomy is the power of construction vs the power of destruction. The first is hard, the second easy, relatively speaking. For Attila the Witch Doctor is easy window dressing, IMO, elevated by Rand as a way of elevating the role of a hard (positive) philosophy itself in history, also IMO. Hard philosophy seems to be after the fact of the society that made the (that) philosophy possible. Sometimes hard philosophy seems to get ahead of the situation, dragging society along with it in a positive sense, which would be natural rights' philosophy. Negatively--that is, easy philosophy--you have the destructive power of Marxism giving society transformators a green moral light to mass murder to get rid of the old making way for the new. (See, Cambodia under Pol Pot for the most recent example.) In today's times Marxism has been mostly sublimated into social engineering with more and more overt fascist manifestations. If it's not freedom it's fascism. All totalitarian or semi-totalitarian movements and/or regimes are at the base fascist, including communism--that is, making people's things and people do and be what you, if ye be Attila, want them to do or be, or lock them up or blow them up or shot them down. The Muslim religion is the most fascist major religion on earth--to the point of a working, generalized, destructive insanity.

--Brant

it was hard (and long) to build the World Trade Center towers and easy to bring them down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious that Selene and others (the three other sites I looked to for previously written analysis on the conversation) found the the most interesting part to be the Dagny, Rearden, "not your wife" stuff. Curious-er still, is the fact that I find nothing interesting in that portion but ... If scum bag finds more value in raping the company vs production, what can you do in this environment of debt and public shares?

It is complicated because of Ayn Rand's unique and brilliant insight that the Mayor's view of sex is consistent with his view of economics: they stem from the same root. Moreover, it is a theme within Atlas Shrugged that although Rearden is a producer, he shares the Mayor's view of sex. That contradiction within Rearden is why he allows his family to exploit him and why government exploitation is only secondary to that. The sanction of the victim requires the acceptance of an unearned guilt.

I have not seen Pretty Woman, so I do not know the character played by Richard Geer; but I do know Wall Street and Other People's Money, so I understand the icon. It is critical that we differentiate the distorted projections of business people given by the mainstream media from the reality of investment banking.

If you are looking for absolute answers, you will not understand the Objectivist insistence on context. In a mixed economy, government regulations force honest people to engage in immoral actions; and also allow dishonest people to benefit from them. To take the cases we all probably know well, Michael Milken's leveraged buy-outs increased value and improved production and performance.

You might have some real-world examples that show the kind of looting that Bascom engaged in.

It is an error in perception delivered to us by public schools and the broad tradition of mysticism in education that a steel mill is really production, but that banking is not. A rise in prices is a signal of growth, while falling prices - especially falling corporate joint share ("common stock") prices - cause worry. A company that produces widgets is good, but an investor who shorts their stock is evil. Conservatives join liberals in this fallacy. You find people among Objectivists who say that farmers and rural folk who live "close to the land" really do support themselves but that city people are socialist moochers who cannot support themselves. The common error across all of those fallacies is the failure to conceptualize financial commerce.

See my review of Yaron Brook's talk here at UT the other night. People generally approve of large salaries for sports stars because we know how to play the game. We just are poor performers; and we know it. Even Bill Gates and Steve Jobs delivered to us what we have on our desks and in our hands. So, we can perceive those. We do not easily perceive investment banking. Even though we all manage our own finances, very few people approach it with the focus of a banker. Most people live range-of-the-moment, hand-to-mouth, even if they have good-paying jobs. Detroit experienced three generations of that non-conceptual approach to life. Now it is Starnesville.

Later Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden goes around the country buying abandoned tooling and machineries. Suppose he could buy an entire functioning plant in business and profitable, take all the production tools, and ship them back to his own mill, leaving all of the workers to their own devices and resources. Should he not do that?

The difference between Mayor Bascom and Michael Milken is not in the actions but within the persons. To focus on the acts apart from the actors is to commit an epistemological error that leads to an incorrect moral assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now