What caused Atlas to Shrugg?

[m082844]

There seems to be an underlying principle dealing with standards, which caused the captains of industry to shrug. "By what standard?" was quoted a lot in the book. Upon identifying the standards at play, the result would be a change in a character’s action.

"a “standard” is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html

There is another thread covering standards, but it doesn't directly address this issue of why it causes Atlas to shrug.

I can see how if one identifies and defines the standards involved that there could be a reaction, a change in action, or a redirection of action back towards the goal once desired. If so, then what's keeping that from happing now? Granted, it occurs automatically to some extent on an individual basis, but specifically my question is: would the identification of the standards at play cause a similar reaction as it does in Atlas Shrugged or was Atlas Shrugged strictly fiction in that regard?

[Eiuol]

I don't think I understand your question. Presumably, you understand that the characters in Atlas Shrugged identified a standard of value and acted in accordance with that discovery. The only way to take a new course of action is with some sort of conceptual discovery, because new knowledge provides even more ways of dealing with the world. It's important to recognize that taking a new course of action is not automatic, evasion is possible. It's possible to completely ignore any new discovery and pretend it never happened, carrying on with life the same way as before. Are you asking what's keeping people in general from still choosing to focus on life in an egoistic way? If so, there are all sorts of reasons, mostly relating to some means of making evasion possible. Religion is one factor to take into account, but there certainly are many more factors to take into account.

[Tanaka]

There seems to be an underlying principle dealing with standards, which caused the captains of industry to shrug. "By what standard?" was quoted a lot in the book. Upon identifying the standards at play, the result would be a change in a character’s action.

"a “standard” is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html

There is another thread covering standards, but it doesn't directly address this issue of why it causes Atlas to shrug.

I can see how if one identifies and defines the standards involved that there could be a reaction, a change in action, or a redirection of action back towards the goal once desired. If so, then what's keeping that from happing now? Granted, it occurs automatically to some extent on an individual basis, but specifically my question is: would the identification of the standards at play cause a similar reaction as it does in Atlas Shrugged or was Atlas Shrugged strictly fiction in that regard?

The main difference is that, unlike in AS, ambitious people can just leave for another country if the obstacles to success in their own country become too great.

But if, like in AS, the entire world were to at some point become inhospitable for producers, sure, they would eventually disappear. In AS, John Galt's organized strike didn't cause the destruction of the industrial US, it merely served the purpose of speeding up that process, so that fundamental change would occur in the lifetimes of the strikers.

To answer what I think is your question: "Would great industrialists shrug or die working in total futility?": Socialism is obviously an unsustainable ideology. It will kill itself. There is no reason to think industrialists can't recognize that fact. There is no reason to expect them all to just let their inertia keep them producing in a fully socialist society, even when there is no motivation for doing so. I think in such a society, producers would shrug even before their breed would inevitably just die off.

I can see how if one identifies and defines the standards involved that there could be a reaction, a change in action, or a redirection of action back towards the goal once desired. If so, then what's keeping that from happing now?

Reality. We don't live in the world described in AS. It is very much possible for a person who's standard is his own life to act accordingly. Sure, there are obstacles in his way, which will slow him down, but not the kind of impenetrable walls described in AS.

[John Tate]

There seems to be an underlying principle dealing with standards, which caused the captains of industry to shrug. "By what standard?" was quoted a lot in the book. Upon identifying the standards at play, the result would be a change in a character’s action.

"a “standard” is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html

There is another thread covering standards, but it doesn't directly address this issue of why it causes Atlas to shrug.

I can see how if one identifies and defines the standards involved that there could be a reaction, a change in action, or a redirection of action back towards the goal once desired. If so, then what's keeping that from happing now? Granted, it occurs automatically to some extent on an individual basis, but specifically my question is: would the identification of the standards at play cause a similar reaction as it does in Atlas Shrugged or was Atlas Shrugged strictly fiction in that regard?

Do you really think the world is quite as bad as Atlas Shrugged? The major missing ingredient is the existence of a true Jed Starnes and hopefully the world will never see such an attempt. What is going on today at General Motors and such is not quite the same as it is through the expropriation of their property and not its exercise as a right. Inventors are still widely considered to have earned their wealth. The looters code does not include them but its selective application is typically in the case that someone has not earned it.

In fact I've noticed even some Objectivists around the net in general themselves can go a bit further than attacking Bill Gates' philanthropy to attacking his value. His value by driving competition between hardware companies is easily one of the main reasons we have such affordable and powerful computers. Anybody old enough should know what the difference has become - even Apple were not able to resist the hardware prices that Microsoft and Gates' business model have created.

On the subject of software companies the closest thing to a Jed Starnes like shop is the open source model. Before I found Objectivism I wasted the better part of a decade on this crap. That doesn't make me John Galt however as I never immediately stopped in the revulsion of what I would see. What did I see? A world where a programmer cannot turn it into food, a world where the second-hand tech support guru had less value than the developer... A world with no respect for its motor. A pretty frustrating experience I assure you.

And of course, there is a reason I am here trying to help people understand Objectivism - and it is not a love of teaching or an outgoing personality.

In fact as a programmer I do not have access to anything that resembles sensible patents. I cannot patent a whole invention, but I can patent a dozen or so cogs of each one - each cog or widget being something relatively simple. Ayn Rand's defense of patents does not defend this existing system which seems more about cluttering world trade by having each country run as inept a patent office as is possible rather than protecting the greatest ideas of programmers. Those ideas are of such a level of complexity that the watered down patent system provides developers with nothing at all at least in the area of inventions. On top of that I have morons like Yaron Brook saying that all is well in this area - and he is easily the most lackluster defender of my rights I've ever seen.

[philosopher]

In the book John Galt was going around meeting with the captains of industry and giving them the proof of Objectivist morality. That is why they stopped working. They realized their efforts were in support of evil, so of course you immediately have to stop.

That wouldn't happen today because they are only a handful of people who understand O'ist morality, and if any of them wanted to meet with industrialists they would probably be refused, and if not refused the industrialist probably wouldn't understand it.

A real John Galt would have to be both a philosophy genius and a teaching genius, to understand the argument and then present it in such a way that a businessman could understand it. And geniuses are usually (while generally highly intelligent) only actually genius at one thing, so I wonder if John Galt would ever be possible in real life? Perhaps a more gradual seeping of the ideas in to the culture is a more realistic way to make Atlas shrug, because then when you try to explain to people, they are not so far away to begin with.

[m082844]

Each one of them seems to have their own set of accepted contradictions. Each would also have their individual "last straw" too. Each industrialist had to reach a certain point on their own before John or Francisco would visit them.

To answer John Tate, which part of AS? I think we're worse off than the beginning, and better off than the end. I don't think we've reach that point yet where the conditions are set for all industrialists to shrug, but I think at least for some have or will soon. I'm hearing chatter about increasing taxes again, and Obama met with the leaders of industry recently probably asking forcollecting sacrifices.

[Grames]

Another reason Atlas is not going to shrug in reality is that ability is not found in such concentrated nuggets as depicted in the novel. To illustrate the theme and in order for the plot to work the withdrawal of the men of ability is accomplished by finding a finite number of whole persons and removing them society, but in reality nearly everyone has some ability and there are no irreplaceable people. Aging is the real cause for able people to be replaced with young and inexperienced hence less competent people and yet the world goes on and those left alive and working learn to get better.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel of ideas, not a literal prophecy or a plan for the future.

[m082844]

Another reason Atlas is not going to shrug in reality is that ability is not found in such concentrated nuggets as depicted in the novel. To illustrate the theme and in order for the plot to work the withdrawal of the men of ability is accomplished by finding a finite number of whole persons and removing them society, but in reality nearly everyone has some ability and there are no irreplaceable people. Aging is the real cause for able people to be replaced with young and inexperienced hence less competent people and yet the world goes on and those left alive and working learn to get better.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel of ideas, not a literal prophecy or a plan for the future.

Her ideas, assuming they weren’t floating abstractions, should have some bearing on reality; and it does. Take a look at the brain drain (My link) that occurred in England. Men of ability were flooding to the US. It’s easier to shrug when there is an Atlantis (or a safe haven) to retreat to.

[Dante]

It’s easier to shrug when there is an Atlantis (or a safe haven) to retreat to.

Precisely. The phenomenon of people moving away from regions with high taxes or cumbersome regulations is quite different from the phenomenon in Atlas Shrugged of philosophers giving up and becoming fry cooks. In any society short of outright socialism, doing that is going to actually be a sacrifice for most people.