Francisco Ferrer

The Constitution does not require the U.S. citizenship of a president's father (or mother): Article 2, Section1: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

This is the very point I wished to make when I wrote in Post #4, "The tragedy of socialism is that it cuts a wide swath through society. Even people who've read and understood all of Rand's books will suffer." You, perhaps, have expressed it better.

Brilliant!

Let us then ask what the author's purpose is in putting only altruists and collectivists on the death train. Unless the train was expressly booked to carry 300 true believers to a looters' rally in San Francisco, the passenger list should be expected to include salesmen, small businessmen, ordinary families on vacations, and college graduates on their way back home or off to a new job. In other words, more than a few people who give value for value, take pride in their work, and don't believe the world owes them a living. Clearly Rand went against probability to create a situation where people who believe in evil ideas would have to suffer and die. You yourself (in deleted Post #5) have referred to it as "poetic justice." And the level at which one finds satisfaction in such justice may be called schadenfreude. I said the chapter is the weakest part of Atlas Shrugged. I never said or implied that all of the rest of the book is weak. While I prefer The Fountainhead and We the Living, there is no question that Atlas is a major artistic and philosophical achievement. Criticizing portions of a writer's work does not constitute vilification. As for hiding behind someone, Francisco Ferrer is my handle on this forum. Like millions of others who post on the internet (including more than a few on this forum), I choose not to give my real name. We are very far from the freedom of Galt's Gulch. In our world of the Super Snooper State, people sometimes get jailed or physically attacked for mere words--even in the good ol' USA. Pseudonymously writing for liberty has an old and honorable history.

The delivery of that speech was awful. Here is the real Smedley Butler:

"This kind of gleeful schadenfreude . . ." Where is the gleeful joy in the suffering and death of others, Mr. Not FF? Thanks for the quote. Now we know that every passenger was a wretched altruist of one stripe or another. Therefore when the author flipped her artistic switch to turn all those selfless fools into blackened corpses, there need have been no fretting over "collateral damage." Oh wait, there's this: The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was 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; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, "I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children." Given the character of the mother, it must be safe to presume the kids have already been turned into good little Young Pioneers--or whatever the scouts are named in Rand's dystopia. Dispatching them would be no great loss. And there is this: The man in Seat 5, Car No, 7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not. Is there thoughtcrime in Rand's fictional world? Apparently so, because this guy gets snuffed out simply for not believing in laissez-faire. This chapter from Atlas sounds uncomfortably like Genesis 19, in which Sodom is destroyed because the quota of 10 good men could not be met. The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels. To the gas chamber even bad writers go! Where is the gleeful joy in the suffering and death of others, Mr. Not FF? I've never argued that Dagny was gleeful. After all, the worst railroad disaster in history took place on her railroad and on her watch. Signed, Not Not FF

This does not account for the author's choice to make the loss of looters' lives the most significant take-away from the chapter. If Dagny was in tears over the many innocent lives destroyed, why not showcase them? Why not draw the reader's attention to the fact that most of the dead bodies belonged not to parasites but to people who were at one time intelligent, creative, productive, and deserving of a life on this earth? Why not have thumbnail portraits of the innocent victims as the New York Times did for those who died on 911? I venture that the explanation is that, as Mr. Selene suggested, the innocents were mere "collateral damage." The goal of the train wreck was to inflict "poetic justice" on those who embraced the twin evils of altruism and collectivism.

That's what I thought too and that's what nags at me. Sorry for your discomfort. Does not bother me at all. The term "collateral damage" is a military euphemism for destroying things that rightfully should not have been destroyed. It represents a utilitarian calculus: some innocent lives and property may be sacrificed to serve the greater good. Or as the U.S. Department of "Defense" puts it: "Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack." Since we are using military terms, then let's follow a military scenario. Suppose the killing of 300 people on a train is not the consequence of bureaucratic interference, incompetence and cowardice but of civil war. Suppose that in order to eliminate Kip Chalmers and two dozen other looters, a certain band of freedom fighters fires a mortar at the train. To get at the intended target of 20 or so looters, 280 non-looters are also killed. The freedom fighters are not discomforted, "not bothered at all." Would Rand have had John Galt pull a stunt like this? "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine -- unless the other man is riding on a train with looters that have to be exterminated."

That's what I thought too and that's what nags at me.

There are 300 passengers on the Comet when its toxic smoke-spewing engine enters the eight-mile tunnel. Yet only a couple of dozen of the victims are described in detail. And the details aren't pretty: contempt for the individual, envy of success, hatred of ability, admiration for the the bold use of state power. But what of the rest of the passenger list? Surely 300 out of 300 aren't altruist-collectivist specimens. Couldn't there be, say, a Henry Cameron, a Stephen Mallory, an Austin Heller, or a Mike the Electrician in the bunch? The fact that none of the victims except the bad guys get put into the spotlight suggests that the most important fact the reader is supposed to take away from the train wreck is not that innocent people died senselessly, but rather that the dupes who put thugs like Kip Chalmers and Mr. Thompson in power are getting their comeuppance. Or, as you call it, "poetic justice." Unless everyone on that train was a card-carrying member of the Looter's Party and was on his way to the World Congress of the Comintern, I'd say death by poisonous gas is a tad too heavy a price for poetic justice. I admit that the chapter didn't phase me the first time I encountered it in my teens. But a second reading years later shocked me into the realization that Rand had handed Whittaker Chambers grist for his mill.

One point is valid: the gas chamber in the train tunnel is the weakest part of 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. The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men. The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion "for a good cause," who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others—to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder—for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of "a good cause," which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by "a feeling"—a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied solely on his own "good intentions" and on the power of a gun. The woman in Roomette 10, Car No. 3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing. The man in Drawing Room B, Car No, 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that men are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic instincts, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and to murder one another—and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rulers, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice. . Why can't the victims on the Taggart Comet simply be human beings, a realistic collection of the ambitious and the indolent, the glamorous and the bland, the clever and the stupid? Rand insists on making them all self-righteous automatons of the altruist-collectivist axis. This kind of gleeful schadenfreude doesn't make for good fiction or political commentary. The tragedy of socialism is that it cuts a wide swath through society. Even people who've read and understood all of Rand's books will suffer.

I have figured it out: You couldn't resist one more jab at what you call the "artsy-fartsy."

Perhaps you are right. Among people who seem to share an agreement with the non-aggression principle, there may be Hitlers and Mussolinis lurking. I may regret it later, but when the ship of state starts sinking, I'd rather be in an enclave with Objectivists and libertarians than with a cross-section of the population that gave us the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama.

But I did not deny the "normal" meaning of the word "satire." In fact, I provided evidence that my definition (concept) of the word was normal, i.e., consistent with the definition (concept) that is widely understood by those who regularly write about the subject. Once more, I see that rather than offering any proof that the meaning I attached to the word "satire" was odd or crackpot, your response is to evade and fire off another unsupported accusation. The very fact I've been careful to explain my use of the word and reference it with numerous, consistent definitions (concepts) explodes the "concrete-bound" charge as an absurdity. I appreciate your attempt to re-write this thread in playlet format. Perhaps that skit is what you'd like the readers to take for what happened. Perhaps that is what you take for what happened. As for me, I prefer the unabridged version. Regarding your notes on "mental masturbation," "false sense of inner self-worth" and "neurotic itch": again, thanks for permitting me to lie on your couch and writing up an analysis without fee. As for the allegation of derailing the discussion, you might recall that just a day ago I attempted to call a ceasefire in Post #29. Here's how it went: Francisco Ferrer, on 14 Sept 2013 - 10:46 AM, said: You responded: Can you tell me why that was not the end of it?

The root problem is state control of education. Most high school athletic associations are government-run. We have no way to predict exactly how things would be different if government were to exit the field of education entirely. One thing is for sure: there would be far more choice.

If I've made an error, point it out. Otherwise you're just making unsupported assertions. You invoke the name of Ayn Rand and her book on epistemology, yet when challenged for a citation, you answer with more accusations and complaints: "yawp, yawp, yawp." I certainly appreciate your concern about my insecurities. Now that you've apparently abandoned the attempt to prove that I've attached an odd and crackpot meaning to the word "satire," perhaps you'll feel on firmer ground in the realm of counseling.

FF, I never said that. (Besides, who are you to tell anyone what to do? Heh. You're a bossy little thing, ain't you? Do you stamp your foot and pout, too?) I said you are using concepts the wrong way. There is a difference between a concept and a word. I'm beginning to believe you don't know the difference. You certainly show inconsistent signs in conceptual thinking. I suggest reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or rereading it if you already have in order to understand it this time around. Granted, it's Objectivism 102, not 101, and boring as all hell, but you have a good mind when you aren't using it for playing social standing mind games. I'm sure you will manage to get through it and actually understand it if you try (and without referencing the artsy-fartsy world or correcting the unwashed masses to boot). In other words, I believe you have the capacity to use your own mind and do your own thinking should you wish to. You alone. Individual. But hey, I might be wrong. I have been before... Michael Let's return to your Post #10: Feel free to attach odd meanings to words as you deny their normal meanings. But you come off as a crackpot when you try to instruct people about things you do not know. I predict you will always have communication problems. Note the phrase, "attach odd meanings to words." In describing Atlas Shrugged as, among other things, a "satire," I used the word in a way that is consistent with its usage throughout the English-speaking world. As I showed with references to several sources, satire is not exclusively comedic and may be applied to serious, even dystopian works. As for the distinction between concepts and words, the only way you can know what concepts I am forming is by reading the words I use to represent those concepts. Yet you have offered no proof that the idea of satire as a genre of literature that encompasses both the comedic and the serious is conceptually in error. I have a very clear idea of what the word means. When I use the word, others understand me without difficulty. You are the only one who appears to have a problem. I have read ITOE. Kindly cite the part wherein Rand forbids concepts that admit a wide range of objects into the class.

FF, Ah come on. It was going so good for a minute. Do you really want to do this enlightened master instructing the unwashed masses routine? OK. Let's go there for a minute. You wrote, "Let's be clear that Griffin didn't write that blurb." Really? And you know that how? Do you know him? You may say well the publisher, not the author supplies blurb text. OK. That's often true (and often not.) So are you certain Griffen did not write the text for The University Press of Kentucky? If so, how do you know he did not write it? In my experience, university presses are not very strong in the marketing department and there is a culture of authors writing their promotional material, at least the first draft. Or they write it in direct collusion with the publisher. It's not always, but it happens plenty. But how do you know Griffen did not do something like that? Now let's look at the common sense angle. Is the style of the blurb in the same style as the rest of the book? I don't own the book and there is no preview, so it's impossible to say with absolute accuracy. But if I were a betting man, I would bet it does. Also, I don't see that kind of style as boilerplate marketing in popular books. So I believe it's a good guess the author wrote it. And it's a better guess the author at least approved the text before publication. Let's dig the hole deeper. You said. "The gist of the sentence quoted is that satire is a broad genre and defies simplistic definition." I say horseshit. That's not the gist of the sentence at all. Here is another quote from the same blurb, just a couple of sentences distant from the one I quoted above: Griffen doesn't even think satire can be confined to a genre, so how can it be a "broad genre"? He certainly does not put forth a "comprehensive theory." At least the blurb says so. This means he cannot say anything for sure about the definition of satire. Moving on. You said, "On that point I heartily agree." I am pretty sure you were thinking about the "broad" and "defies simplistic definition" part. So according to that standard, it's perfectly all right to say 1984 is a satire. I can agree with that. But here's the rub. Using that same standard, it's perfectly all right to say 1984 is NOT a satire. Because it's going to depend on the authority of the one who decides the components of the non-simplistic definition--being that simplicity is thoroughly defied and all. So who may that be, pray tell? The one who throws the most quotes at the other? The one who can outsnark the other? The one who plays the snooty intellectual intimidation game better and rules in artsy-fartsy-land? The one who owns the printing press? The one who teaches a class? Or maybe by vote or referendum of selected individuals? Or by popular demand? Who? This is conceptual mush. I can do this stuff all day, but this is not the reason I like to discuss ideas. So, I'll stop the crap now. I suggest you do the same. Whatever. It's your choice. Any more wise words to light the path of the ignorant? Inquiring minds do so very much clamor for enlightenment. Michael I do not know who wrote the blurb. In any case, the words make perfect sense to me. 1984 qualifies as a satire if we accept the definitions of satire that are in wide currency: Merriam-Webster: "a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn" Dictionary.com: "1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. 2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule." It would not qualify if we we were to use an idiosyncratic definition insists that all satire is comedy. Am I appealing to authority by referencing Wiki and other sources? Perhaps so. And you are, of course, free to insist on a definition that is pure and free of "mush" and owes nothing to the "artsy-fartsy" (an undefined term). What you cannot do, unless you submit supporting evidence, is to declare that applying the word "satire" to non-comedic works is "odd" or "crackpot." It is no such thing. There are quite a few serious novels that are accepted by both scholars and the wider public as satirical. It is rather like Mr. Moralist insisting elsewhere on this forum that only a person with morals can be called a "woman" and that all other members of that gender are merely "females." Moralist is entitled to his specialized vocabulary and you to yours. But don't start telling the rest of us that we're using words the wrong way.

I couldn't make that one up. (You didn't really read those three books, did you? ) Michael First, let's be clear that Griffin didn't write that blurb. Secondly, the gist of the sentence quoted is that satire is a broad genre and defies simplistic definition. On that point I heartily agree. In literature there are a great many terms that require lengthy and nuanced explanations. A very good example for this forum is "romanticism." Ayn Rand said, "Romantic literature accepts as its fundamental principle . . . that the role of a fiction writer is to present things not as they are but as they might be or ought to be." The problem is that Rand's definition while capturing the "expressive" aspect of romanticism, ignores the rest of it, which included rejecting reason, science, commerce, and the "atomistic" society produced by rationalism. No wonder then that the romantics largely hated the free market, the division of labor and the Industrial Revolution. For an excellent treatment of the romantic movement see, M.H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp. As for the three books I cited on satire, I read all of one and parts of the other two in order to prepare for an evening course I taught on George Orwell.

The question of exactly when the age of majority and thus legal independence begins is something that societies with minimal governments would have to deal with too. This is not a state vs. anarchy issue. Having said that, my preference is to let any child at any age who desires so to declare his independence. He may then live with any household who will have him.

I cited Wikipedia simply to counter your assertion that "Satire is a form of comedy" and that a serious book like Atlas Shrugged cannot be called a satire. Wikipedia is far from being the only authority on the subject. See also here, here, and here. There are whole libraries of books on literary terms and the meaning of them. So feel free to cite any website, any book, any scholar that supports your narrow definition of the word. The essential point is that my use of the word "satire" in a more inclusive way is anything but "odd" or "crackpot" as you claimed in Post #10. If you see scholars as "artsy-fartsy academic," i.e. untrustworthy and at odds with the general public, then go take a poll. But any high school student who's read Animal Farm can tell you a) it is a satire and b) it is not a comedy. In my initial post I said, "Among other things, Atlas Shrugged is a satire." You responded, "While there are some satirical elements in a few sporadic parts of Atlas Shrugged, I would hardly call the book a comedy." On that point we can agree and on that agreement, perhaps, we should leave the matter.

The anarchist does not say there should be no limits on authority. The anarchist simply questions how an institution with a monopoly on force, a institution which sits as a judge in its own case, can be trusted to limit its own authority. As to what an intentional community of contributors to Objectivist Living would look like on the ground: you'd have to walk a long way before you found a food stamp, a welfare check, a gun permit, or an income tax return.

Never thought about it like that. With neighbors like Dagny, Ragnar, Francisco, Hank and Johnny, life would have less passion than a bowl of cold oatmeal. Get me back my red-blooded American politic with its envy-driven progressives, theocratic Republicans, gun-hating soccer moms, and bomb 'em first nationalists.

I'll take boring any day over the delectations of democracy.

In Rand's fiction there had to be heroes and villains in stark white and black. The same apparently held true in her interpretation of world history. Look, to take one egregious example, at the introduction to For the New Intellectual. Ancient Greece good. Middle Ages evil. Renaissance good, etc. No room for shades of gray here.