Just re-started Atlas Shrugged

[Brant Gaede]

The reason there won't be any serious manned space exploration--a round trip to Mars doesn't count--is there is no one to trade with out there. Trade pays the bills and brings in the profits.

--Brant

outside the earth and moon binary system we aren't going anywhere that's not ad hoc

[jts]

...state science ...

Derrick:

This is a contradiction in terms, is my understanding.

Schience cannot be "supported" by the centralized state...

A...

Really? What is the medical profession? Of course I (being a kook) see the medical profession as quackery, but rational people see it as science.

For example in the USA, nutrition therapy is illegal (that why they go to Mexico) and poison therapy is enforced by law. With state science, nutrition therapy is not based on science and poison therapy is based on science. With free market science, you would have choice and the method that produces best results would tend to win.

[Derek McGowan]

So I finished the book

Only thing I would change, is not the length of the book, nor the length of the speeches, I would add more variety to the personalities of the looters. That would fix two problems with the book. It would fix the unrealistic nature of a world in which everything is either hard edged good or hard edged evil. It would also fix the problem of repetitive conversation, in which the hard edge evil looter explains that they deserve something based on need and the hard edged good says that they don't. There are really just four types of conversations in the book good discusses with good, second tier good discusses with good, evil discusses with evil, and evil discusses while good offers either one word responses or lengthy speeches : )

That is actually fine by me, but if there was more variety behind the motivations of the looters then the good could have still expressed their philosophy but could have explained it to a greater number of readers. Maybe instead of the book being primarily a anthem for those who already believe, it could have been a teaching text to convert those who don't...

[Francisco Ferrer]

These are valid criticisms for any novel. The problem is that Rand delivered herself not of a mere novel but of a bible, a good book of wisdom and parables "For the New Intellectual" to deliver him from this present evil world, according to the axioms of Objectivism.

[jts]

So I finished the book

Only thing I would change, is not the length of the book, nor the length of the speeches, I would add more variety to the personalities of the looters. That would fix two problems with the book. It would fix the unrealistic nature of a world in which everything is either hard edged good or hard edged evil. It would also fix the problem of repetitive conversation, in which the hard edge evil looter explains that they deserve something based on need and the hard edged good says that they don't. There are really just four types of conversations in the book good discusses with good, second tier good discusses with good, evil discusses with evil, and evil discusses while good offers either one word responses or lengthy speeches : )

That is actually fine by me, but if there was more variety behind the motivations of the looters then the good could have still expressed their philosophy but could have explained it to a greater number of readers. Maybe instead of the book being primarily a anthem for those who already believe, it could have been a teaching text to convert those who don't...

My understanding of Ayn Rand's novels is that each character is a personification of a philosophic idea. In real life probably nobody is a perfectly consistent personification of a philosophic idea. This is not a criticism of Ayn Rand's style.

Ayn Rand explained her philosophy of art in the Romantic Manifesto. Her style was romanticism, not naturalism. Naturalism means just copying reality. She did not just copy reality. She was thumbs up on romantcism and thumbs down on naturalism.

For more information about Ayn Rand's ideas about how to write a novel, see the Journals of Ayn Rand. In that, she wrote notes to herself in the process of planning a novel and you can see how thoughtfully the characters were designed.

You probably can find a bunch of web pages commenting on Ayn Rand's characters to see whether I am correct that each Ayn Rand character is a personification of a philosophic idea. Here is one such web page.

[Derek McGowan]

Francisco, I took your Galt statement above as a joke, with your current statement I'm wondering if you are being serious.... If you are being serious then you probably need the services of a cult deprogrammer

[Brant Gaede]

So I finished the book

Only thing I would change, is not the length of the book, nor the length of the speeches, I would add more variety to the personalities of the looters. That would fix two problems with the book. It would fix the unrealistic nature of a world in which everything is either hard edged good or hard edged evil. It would also fix the problem of repetitive conversation, in which the hard edge evil looter explains that they deserve something based on need and the hard edged good says that they don't. There are really just four types of conversations in the book good discusses with good, second tier good discusses with good, evil discusses with evil, and evil discusses while good offers either one word responses or lengthy speeches : )

That is actually fine by me, but if there was more variety behind the motivations of the looters then the good could have still expressed their philosophy but could have explained it to a greater number of readers. Maybe instead of the book being primarily a anthem for those who already believe, it could have been a teaching text to convert those who don't...

The heroes would be upstaged. 30 years ago I could have played James Taggart off of two choices: all out depiction of the character or mute it to avoid upstaging everything/everyone around me including the story itself. Considering that at the time I lost interest in the idea. Now Toohey would have been okay played all out as had been well done, the ony character in that movie believably mouthing Rand's words.

--Brant

and you have to respect a work of great art by leaving it alone or it turns to shit

(I have not seen the AS movies made so far)

[Derek McGowan]

JTS, I appreciate your links.

I wasn't commenting on whether the individual characters were consistent in their beliefs, I meant that there should have been a greater variety of beliefs. You can still have the looters fall under the general classification of evil, sure but there are differences in people's motivations. Example, not everyone who is anti-capital simply wants what others have, some people want to be protected from capitalists, some people are scared, some people really want community based production. Some people who take subsidies are lazy, but some see the subsidy as a way to get free resources with which to build the business, some take subsidies and hand outs because they actually are starving. Etc

I think that hearing the objectivist philosophy take on the many facets of the opposition could have been educational

[Derek McGowan]

Oh, brant, I re-looked up Neil tysons remarks, and he didn't mention anything about inflation. Also I was wrong, he said NASA budgets were less then the bank bailout, not the military, sorry

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, brant, I re-looked up Neil tysons remarks, and he didn't mention anything about inflation. Also I was wrong, he said NASA budgets were less then the bank bailout, not the military, sorry

The best way might be to calculate how much it would cost to duplicate multiple flights to the moon today using the same hardware--the giant Apollo rockets. Or, the going-to-the-moon space program of the 1960s.

--Brant

huge, huge, huge (let me say it again: huge, huge, huge--and don't ask me about Vietnam!)

[Francisco Ferrer]

These are valid criticisms for any novel. The problem is that Rand delivered herself not of a mere novel but of a bible, a good book of wisdom and parables "For the New Intellectual" to deliver him from this present evil world, according to the axioms of Objectivism.

Francisco, I took your Galt statement above as a joke, with your current statement I'm wondering if you are being serious.... If you are being serious then you probably need the services of a cult deprogrammer

I am perfectly serious. To the extent that Atlas works as an instrument of doctrine, a morality play, it fails as literary art.

[Selene]

...state science ...

Derrick:

This is a contradiction in terms, is my understanding.

Schience cannot be "supported" by the centralized state...

A...

Really? What is the medical profession? Of course I (being a kook) see the medical profession as quackery, but rational people see it as science.

For example in the USA, nutrition therapy is illegal (that why they go to Mexico) and poison therapy is enforced by law. With state science, nutrition therapy is not based on science and poison therapy is based on science. With free market science, you would have choice and the method that produces best results would tend to win.

I am so sorry, since I was not endorsing the, let me see how you labeled what I mentioned, for lack of a better word, considering your pathetic argumentation here, "MEDICAL PROFESSION," oops I am sooo sorry to emphasize that my coment did not meet up to your exceptional standards.

Geez, when are you going to just stick to the issues dude.

A...

[Derek McGowan]

Just started thinking recently, wouldn't Ragnar's actions be considered cronyism? After all the world that they effectively set up is one were fiat currency collapses (along with whatever government that had established it) to be replaced by, what I'm assuming to be, a gold standard, and Ragnar specifically says that he isn't creating accounts for everyone but merely those who he feels deserves them (mostly his friends, or those Galt or Fransisco gave their seal of approval)

If the world now operates on gold, wouldn't this group of people have more than an advantage, they'd have dictator status, and such a status being conveyed upon them by a single individual who seeks basically to protect them and their way of life and doing business.

[Brant Gaede]

Just started thinking recently, wouldn't Ragnar's actions be considered cronyism? After all the world that they effectively set up is one were fiat currency collapses (along with whatever government that had established it) to be replaced by, what I'm assuming to be, a gold standard, and Ragnar specifically says that he isn't creating accounts for everyone but merely those who he feels deserves them (mostly his friends, or those Galt or Fransisco gave their seal of approval)

If the world now operates on gold, wouldn't this group of people have more than an advantage, they'd have dictator status, and such a status being conveyed upon them by a single individual who seeks basically to protect them and their way of life and doing business.

The world does not operate on gold. It operates on currency faith.

--Brant

[Selene]

...Ragnar's actions...

How do you understand his "actions?"

Are you referring to the scene where Ragnar comes out of the night and explains what portion of Readen's personal wealth that was unjustly seized by the state that the gold bar represents?

A...

[Derek McGowan]

Brant, when I said the world "now" operates on gold, I meant it would operate on gold after the events of atlas shrugged.

Selene, ragnars actions are the ones where he takes gold from federal ships and give s it to a chosen few. My current belief is that that should be considered cronyism.

[Selene]

Selene, ragnars actions are the ones where he takes gold from federal ships and give s it to a chosen few. My current belief is that that should be considered cronyism.

Derek:

I understand your concept, however, labeling it "cronyism" doesn't work for me.

Is there another way to analyze this semantically.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, when I said the world "now" operates on gold, I meant it would operate on gold after the events of atlas shrugged.

Selene, ragnars actions are the ones where he takes gold from federal ships and give s it to a chosen few. My current belief is that that should be considered cronyism.

Derek, there are no after Atlas Shrugged events nor will there ever be, but sorry I screwed up on your post.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

Selene, I'm notorious for using the wrong words to describe what I'm thinking (that's why I advocate for linking people mind to mind!) So I don't know what the proper word is. I just don't like the implications... Unless I'm missing something from the story

[Brant Gaede]

Selene, ragnars actions are the ones where he takes gold from federal ships and give s it to a chosen few. My current belief is that that should be considered cronyism.

Derek:

I understand your concept, however, labeling it "cronyism" doesn't work for me.

Is there another way to analyze this semantically.

Try virtuous-man tribalism.

--Brant

[Selene]

So I finished the book...

And your changes to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Gettysbugh Address and Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Cow Palace in 1963 oops [brant is absolutely correct Summer of 1964 - duh election in November 1964] will be in future posts before your tackle Shakespeare and the Old Testament?

Sorry to be rude, however, your point is?

[Brant Gaede]

1964.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Derek,

Don't forget context.

This is similar to the militia people on the fringe right who now propose armed revolt. (btw - Not all militia people. Just the more fanatical ones who have gone off into prioritizing hatred of the federal government at all costs.)

The way to change the enormous amount of federal land in the West is through meetings of the state governments and opening due processes--like they have just started doing. There is representation and a reasonable way of addressing this issue in law.

The extreme militia people argue that the revolutionaries in the 1700's were in the same situation as we are now. This is untrue starting with the representation issue. Our ancestors had no representation in the King's government. They took up arms and staged a violent revolt because all other options had been exhausted. Notice that it took decades to come to that decision.

Ragnar is more or less in a similar position (albeit fiction and at a much faster rate). He has joined an explicit revolt to destroy a morality that governs society--through show and tell no less. This is not a position he took on and rationalized like the fringe militia folks have done. What's more, he is on a crusade to right a wrong, sort of like a comic book hero.

So his returning the money and setting up accounts using his own standards is a wartime measure, not cronyism. No other way to organize it is doable in that context. (Don't forget, he still has to expend his time and efforts to kick the asses of the bad guys and sink ships without killing anyone. )

After peace has been established and the producers return to the world, he would stop what he is doing. That's pretty much implied and I can't think of a friend or foe of Rand's ideas who would imagine he would continue.

Crony capitalists never stop. They try to make laws so they keep the good times rolling.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Agreed.

He is my favorite of the Ayn holy trinity.

I believe he was going to teach philosophy when he decided to stop making the theiving scum start to "pay" for their theft.

Ayn's ridiculous non-understanding of actual conflict should be ridiculed because it is highly improbable, verging on impossible/ridiculous to assert that you could shell a steel plant and not kill folks.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Derek, no one is entitled to fix AS. After a few fixes the whole thing will collapse from masterpiece to a mess no one will like.

--Brant

read Toohey