Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
agrippa1

New York Times: "'Going Galt': Everyone's doing it

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

She is 'kinda cute, though. Lots of negative comments from people who obviously have never read AS, or, having readit, failed to understand the underlying meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle Malkin holding a sign saying she's "Going Galt". Ouch! That's not the type of person you want associated with rational philosophy.

I greet this with mixed feelings. The temptation is there to say "this time for sure" but somehow, I know better. After Bush II and hiw crowd, do we really want to get lumped in with the Conservatives (despite the fact that Bush et al weren't, the preception is there and the Cons did carry his water until it got bad).

From her website

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/06/the-g...phenom-spreads/

She's not that bad. Even Brudnoy relied on her for some things She resisted the McCainiacs for quite a while. and she's better than Boortz, Reagan, Levin and Savage. If any of you have any dealings with Mark Williams (last out of San Diago), ask him if the name "Laser" gives him a sense of deja vu all over again.

I can tell how young some of you are. For me, it's part of th retro thing. The Cons get pushed around and guess what. It's "Bits and Pieces of Ayn Rand" redux. There was an strong unoficial alliance of sorts from 1976-84. But now that they've started this "God in Governemtn" crapola, do we really want to gt involved with them? We can cure this with the a-word.

Get out the mood rings, leisure suits and pet rocks I've been expecting this for some time.

Been there, Done that, got the Gerry Fored and Alan Greenspan T-shirt

Edited by Space Patroller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can tell how young some of you are.

I'm almost 50.

Get out the mood rings, leisure suits and pet rocks I've been expecting this for some time.

Been there, Done that, got the Gerry Fored and Alan Greenspan T-shirt

I was there the first time around, no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle Malkin holding a sign saying she's "Going Galt". Ouch! That's not the type of person you want associated with rational philosophy.

Very ironically, her husband worked for the RAND corporation. (Research ANd Development).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She is 'kinda cute, though.

michellemalkin.jpg

:wub:

On a more serious note, I have to say, I'm a little skeptical. How many of these people actually would leave their jobs for a philosophical strike? Even if this did happen, it would be a normal strike, just on the white collar side. This country isn't philosophical enough for anything like AS to happen. When people see that Obama isn't working, they'll elect a "capitalist" for the same reason they elected Obama - range of the moment panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michellemalkin.jpg

:wub:

On a more serious note, I have to say, I'm a little skeptical. How many of these people actually would leave their jobs for a philosophical strike? Even if this did happen, it would be a normal strike, just on the white collar side. This country isn't philosophical enough for anything like AS to happen. When people see that Obama isn't working, they'll elect a "capitalist" for the same reason they elected Obama - range of the moment panic.

Wait, so you're saying we're even worse off than the hypothetical America at the end of Atlas Shrugged? As if I didn't have enough reason to commit suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, so you're saying we're even worse off than the hypothetical America at the end of Atlas Shrugged? As if I didn't have enough reason to commit suicide.

Before you do, take a week and read AS again. You don't need to speculate on whether we're better off or not than AS America, you just need to read the specific things that are happening, in the book, that are causing producers to go on strike. They are described in detail:

1. Galt went on strike after "Twentieth Century Motor" decided to pay everyone according to their need. Is there such a company in todays America? I certainly haven't heard.

2. Midas (and judge whatshisname) went on strike after a superior court overturned the decision affirming Midas's right not to loan his own money to T.C.M., based solely on need. Are there such decisions made and upheld in courts today? I haven't heard.

3. Taggart Continental's competitors went on strike after a law forcing them to sell their lines, based on the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" (If I remember correctly). Is there such a law today? I haven't heard.

The list goes on. Each striker had a reason that doesn't yet exist today. No need to speculate on who's worse off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Taggart Continental's competitors went on strike after a law forcing them to sell their lines, based on the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" (If I remember correctly). Is there such a law today? I haven't heard.

At that point in the story the Equalization of Opportunity was something the railroads had voluntarily agreed to, and the Phoenix Durango got screwed by it. The owner (Dan Conway IIRC) just up and went out of business even though he could still have said "F*** the lot of you" and ignored it. I cannot imagine Galt inviting that person to the Gulch; Conway was too much into the sacrificial mindset. It certainly wasn't a strike.

I guess it was Rand's first illustration of what happens when one sticks to bad premises, even to the point where it hurts you. It seemed a bit over the top to me, I cannot imagine a successful businessman voluntarily "suiciding" like that.

Later on in AS, the Equalization of Opportunity precedent was adopted by the government.

Nonetheless, Jake has a point here.

OTOH the government has come up with other things that Rand never thought of such as the Community Reinvestment Act, just as appalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTOH the government has come up with other things that Rand never thought of such as the Community Reinvestment Act, just as appalling.

Which is fundamentally identical to what happened to Midas. I think it would be too much to expect the novel to be predictive on a word for word basis. As long as the essentials are the same, the comparison is fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Galt went on strike after "Twentieth Century Motor" decided to pay everyone according to their need. Is there such a company in todays America? I certainly haven't heard.

We have the government imposing pay limits on corporate executives because they consider the compensation they were voluntarily given by shareholders and boards of directors to be excessive. The details are different, but the underlying principle -- compensation based on altruism rather than merit -- is the same.

2. Midas (and judge whatshisname) went on strike after a superior court overturned the decision affirming Midas's right not to loan his own money to T.C.M., based solely on need. Are there such decisions made and upheld in courts today? I haven't heard.

We have the government denying *my* right qua taxpayer to not lend my own money to companies (such as General Motors) based solely on need, and soon to individuals who have mortgages they can't afford. (Indeed, the Community Reinvestment Act comes very close to requiring banks to lend to would-be homebuyers on the basis of need.) The details are different, but the underlying principle -- need entitling one to other people's money, obtained through government force -- is the same.

3. Taggart Continental's competitors went on strike after a law forcing them to sell their lines, based on the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" (If I remember correctly). Is there such a law today? I haven't heard.

There are proposals being floated by the Obama administration that would impose limitations on what they call 'media consolidation', which could require large media companies to divest themselves of some of their operations. The details are different, but the underlying principle -- government arbitrarily limiting the scope and scale of business operations -- is the same.

Are you noticing a pattern here? I'd suggest that you go back and reread Atlas Shrugged, but this time think less about the specific concretes and more about the principles they illustrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you noticing a pattern here?

Yes I am. You are ignoring the scale on which the bad principles are being applied, despite the question I answered being about scale (which situation is worse?).

To Steve: Yes, you're right. (I remembered wrong) Nevertheless, the other two examples, and countless others (Ellis Wyatt, the other Colorado businessmen who's names I forgot, Rearden -they all quit under circumstances far more severe than our current ones), illustrate my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I am. You are ignoring the scale on which the bad principles are being applied, despite the question I answered being about scale (which situation is worse?).

To Steve: Yes, you're right. (I remembered wrong) Nevertheless, the other two examples, and countless others (Ellis Wyatt, the other Colorado businessmen who's names I forgot, Rearden -they all quit under circumstances far more severe than our current ones), illustrate my point.

So anything less that Directive 10-289 is not worth shrugging over? I'm reminded of the poster JohnS who laughed at the lot of us and said something along the lines of "This is wonderful, all we moochers have to do is chain the Atlas's just enough and we can go on living off of them forever."

The comment seemed to go largely unnoticed (though perhaps it was more a case of a reality ignored) but the more I see the more true that comment rings true.

Evil, your name is pragmatism... :D

Edited by Zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I remember JohnS quite well.

He did have a point though it wasn't the one he wanted to make: in today's society, people *will* tolerate parasites quite a bit. At what point will it come to be to much? And far more importantly: When people get fed up and "go Galt" will they draw the *correct* lesson from their experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So anything less that Directive 10-289 is not worth shrugging over?

Anything less than Directive 10-289 is worth not being called worse than said directive. Less bad=better. More bad=worse.

NewbieOist said that it's worse, I pointed out the same thing you're saying: it's less bad, meaning better. And yes, if Ayn Rand made her characters shrug at that point, not before, and if we're to take Atlas Shrugged as literal roadmap (which is what you are obviously doing-I'm just saying, not qualifying that either way), then that is the point at which one should give up, not before.

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle Malkin holding a sign saying she's "Going Galt". Ouch! That's not the type of person you want associated with rational philosophy.

Most of those whom we ard discussing know about as much about AS as Art Bell knows about reality.

what is being described is the equivalent of pulling your hand out fast and sharply after being stung by a bee. "Galt" was a helluva lot more than that, he had a plan and he set about actively to implement it.

How many of these persons are ready to quit the religion of the Bible? You cannot be a Bible believing whataver and be "Galt" i.e. Objectivist.

As an example, elsewhere, I mentioned Matt Allen 6-9 PM weeknignts WPRO AM 630 Providdence RI who after saying we need a "John Galt solution" said "We need to get to a basic belief in God, family and country" and who is spreading things like 'mass conciousness" and the lies about Nutri-Sweet that come out of the Alternative medicine hucksters and lunatics.

One can only hope that the liberals do away with them and save us that job because they are usurping our ideas and mixing them with crap which makes us look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of those whom we ard discussing know about as much about AS as Art Bell knows about reality.

what is being described is the equivalent of pulling your hand out fast and sharply after being stung by a bee. "Galt" was a helluva lot more than that, he had a plan and he set about actively to implement it.

How many of these persons are ready to quit the religion of the Bible? You cannot be a Bible believing whataver and be "Galt" i.e. Objectivist.

As an example, elsewhere, I mentioned Matt Allen 6-9 PM weeknignts WPRO AM 630 Providdence RI who after saying we need a "John Galt solution" said "We need to get to a basic belief in God, family and country" and who is spreading things like 'mass conciousness" and the lies about Nutri-Sweet that come out of the Alternative medicine hucksters and lunatics.

One can only hope that the liberals do away with them and save us that job because they are usurping our ideas and mixing them with crap which makes us look bad.

Someone should inform these people that "going Galt" means taking "underGod" out of the Pledge of Allegience and full-bor legaization of drugs and being atheistic: To be carful of that for which they wish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. This is a very exciting time for Objectivism, with Atlas Shrugged currently #2 in the nation in Amazon sales and mass media beginning to recognize and cite some of Ayn Rand's ideas. However, I call the emotion I feel from this a sort of cautious elation.

It seems that just about everyone who appears on TV talking about Atlas Shrugged (with the natural exception of Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate, etc. on Fox every now and again) really doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. This is even worse than the libertarian view of "I like what she said about politics, let's just use that" because these people don't even understand Objectivist politics! What they hear is that punishing success with taxes is a bad thing, and that John Galt was someone who made a stand against that. They have no idea that Objectivism denounces all taxation!

The part that really bothers me comes from when I see WHO is doing their research. Every time I some Fox News pundit interviewing someone about "Going Galt" it gets no deeper than taxation. However, there is another thread all about Stephan Colbert's mention of Ayn Rand. I've seen all three of his allusioins to her, and the scary part is, he projects an understanding of the philosophy, which he then uses to attack Rand!

The combination of stupid friends and enemies with initiative (I'm not going to call them smart) is not an especially wonderful one. I do, however, agree with the notion that the very fact Objectivism or at least Atlas Shrugged is getting attention is a good thing.

I think what we, as Objectivists or at least as students of Objectivism, should do is utilize this momentum. At the very least, it has gotten people curious about Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Galt went on strike after "Twentieth Century Motor" decided to pay everyone according to their need. Is there such a company in todays America? I certainly haven't heard.

I live in Australia, many companies have paid paternity and maternity leave which amounts the workers being paid more per hour worked according to their need. Here in Australia massive welfare payments (baby bonus, child endowment, paid maternity leave) are given to people that have children. ie. payment according to need. Many of the people that receive these payments do not even work at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in Australia, many companies have paid paternity and maternity leave which amounts the workers being paid more per hour worked according to their need. Here in Australia massive welfare payments (baby bonus, child endowment, paid maternity leave) are given to people that have children. ie. payment according to need. Many of the people that receive these payments do not even work at all.

My whole point there, as I remember it, had to do with the scale of the evil producers are faced with. You're ignoring precisely that aspect of the two examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...