Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Drukyul

Regulars
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Drukyul's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Well thanks everyone for getting that idea out of my head. I only saw the "he destroyed the motor" idea somewhere (can't find it now) online in an analysis or review or something. I just assumed it was true since that was easier than searching through 1,000 pages. I checked through the chapters that mention the motor and yeah, there's nothing there. But the thread I mentioned was under the assumption that Galt did leave the motor intact anyway. I think I'll repost with that in mind. Going to check a few more chapters first, though.
  2. I was reading through another forum's thread that was basically created just to bash Atlas Shrugged (mostly liberal/Democrat posters). They brought up the part of the book where John Galt, working as an engineer for the Twentieth Century Motor Company, destroys the invention that he was working on. On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be any problem - it's his invention, he can do what he wants with it. The problem is that the book does not specify what type of arrangement Galt had with the company. What ownership stake did the company have in anything Galt invented? What was his job there, exactly (was he hired to invent new types of motors for them)? Even if Galt only signed a very open contract, is the company still owed some share of the motor idea because Galt was on their property using their materials? Of course, the self-described liberals in the thread have various wild notions about what Galt is required to do, for example personally (in person) inform the owners of the company about the invention. They also assume that any contract Galt signed to work there would invariably the most restrictive, intellectual property-taking contract possible (they also claim such contracts are/have been prevalent in the U.S. for a long time, though with no evidence given). But the main point is that a violation of contract (or the company's property) not only diverges with their worldview, but also Ayn Rand's. So what did John Galt owe to the company?
×
×
  • Create New...