Ayn Rand Fans: If you were John Galt, who would you take to stop the worlds motor??

[PlatinumGold]

Ok, here is the question. let's say your john galt, who would you take to stop the worlds motor?? or more to the point, is it possible to stop the worlds motor by just taking a certain number of individuals??

The premise of Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged" is that a few BRILLIANT individuals control the course of history and the economy. Is it true in real life tho??

Let's take for eg. Bill Gate, If you removed Bill Gates from todays world / economy would the Software industry come to a halt?? if not bill gates than name 5 to 10 individuals that would have that kind of impact.

 

[eakers]

santa


<-- cant think of a reply but thats a good question and will make a real reply later on.

 

[Ornery]

Are you sure that's what the premise was? I never found the time to read "Altlas Shrugged", but I've always assumed it's premise was that big business was responsible for the way the world is. If Microsoft weren't around, IBM would probably be calling the tune. Same result with different "leaders". If Henry Ford hadn't existed, somebody else would have gotten the automotive assembly line rolling sooner or later. There was a vacuum "need" just waiting to be filled.

 

[PlatinumGold]

ornery

you stole my thunder, actually that was my conclusion that the mistake ayn rand made was in believing that individuals make that much difference.

atlas shrugged was about a man john galt who believed that by taking key individuals out of todays world and hiding them he would stop the motor of the world.

i believe like you that this simply isn't the case.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I gather from the tenor of your question that you do not accept Ayn Rand's premise that the most brilliant among are truly irreplacable, and I agree with you on that. "Progress" as we know it is much more of a group effort than Ayn wanted to believe.

If it hadn't been Columbus who bumped into the Americas, I have no doubt someone else would have eventually.

If it hadn't been Einstien who discovered relativity, then some other physicist would have done so by now.

If it hadn't been Bill Gates who built an operating system that the fledgling PC industry could rally around, then it would have been someone else. (Maybe we would all be MAC users!)

Taking away a few dozen of the most brilliant people in this world might slow the motor down for a short time, but never stop it.

P.S. -- I'll never forgive Ayn for leaving Dagny's (was that her name?) cousin at the head of the last running train as the world collapsed; that demonstrated to me just how selfish she felt she was entitled by right of her (self-decreed) superiority to be.

 

[Ornery]

Bummer!

I'd just like to add that it would be nice if our government(s) would quit throwing stumbling blocks in front of these entities. Some of our environmental and "worker's rights" related laws have become obscene. Taxes are another detour to progress. Let these businesses sprint ahead with as few constraints as possible and watch our worldwide standard of living soar!

 

[PlatinumGold]

I'll never forgive Ayn for leaving Dagny's (was that her name?) cousin at the head of the last running train as the world collapsed; that demonstrated to me just how selfish she felt she was entitled by right of her (self-decreed) superiority to be.

I agree, eddie was his name, and by all accounts he was a good guy. ayn rand just uses him as an eg. of all the innocents who would suffer in order to teach the looters a lesson.

if you ask me the price is too high. truth is even if she is right about the few individuals, she was wrong to think that it would be worth sacrificing all the eddies (who make up the majority of the population) being that the looters and the Brilliant people were only a small percentage, just to teach the looters a lesson.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ornery

you stole my thunder, actually that was my conclusion that the mistake ayn rand made was in believing that individuals make that much difference.

atlas shrugged was about a man john galt who believed that by taking key individuals out of todays world and hiding them he would stop the motor of the world.

i believe like you that this simply isn't the case.

But the problem here is that our world is no where close to Rand's world of Atlas Shrugged. In her novel, control of the world economy truly does lie in the hands of a few men and women. These are the people with a vision, a capitalist vision; Rand paid particular attention to making the reader aware that the rest of the world wanted a more socialistic extistence. Their underlings not only lack the vision, but furthermore they lack the experience, the drive, and the 'intelligence' to continue in their leaders' paths. Thus, with the heads of beast destroyed, the beast will never know life as it was again. The world will not stop turning in any literal sense, but for Rand, the end of Capitalism is perhaps the end of the world.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

I agree, eddie was his name, and by all accounts he was a good guy. ayn rand just uses him as an eg. of all the innocents who would suffer in order to teach the looters a lesson.

if you ask me the price is too high. truth is even if she is right about the few individuals, she was wrong to think that it would be worth sacrificing all the eddies (who make up the majority of the population) being that the looters and the Brilliant people were only a small percentage, just to teach the looters a lesson.

Exactly!

 

[PlatinumGold]

eliu

obviously ayn rand created an artificial world with artificial eg, BUT, i still believe in her mind, the world of the 50's was still one that if you took key people out of it, she could stop the motor of the world. I believe in her mind, she felt that her portrayal in atlas shrugged was a accurate historical account of what could happen.

it's also true that since the 50's liberalism and socialism has taken a lot stronger a foothold in todays society than what it was then. we have more looters (read all this ridiculous lawsuits) than ever before.

but i still disagree with the premise that the individual is soo important.

 

[eLiu]

Well, in a purely capitalist environment, the individual IS that important...without the business leaders, the economy they created would cease to exist. However, the question that remains is, "Is the end of capitalism bad?" (I don't think so)

But yeah, in any but the most extreme (fictional?) of cases, an individual is not significant in any way, shape, nor form. Without people like Einstein, Columbus, etc, the discoveries they made may have been delayed by decades, centuries, or even millenia. However, in the grand scheme of things, a few hundred or thousand years really is not significant at all. No one individual in human history has had so great an effect that their lack of existence would bring the rest of society down with them.

 

[PlatinumGold]

an individual is not significant in any way, shape, nor form. Without people like Einstein, Columbus, etc, the discoveries they made may have been delayed by decades, centuries, or even millenia.

probably not anywhere near that long. most discoveries had parrallel research going on elsewhere in the world. if it hadn't been that one particular individual it would have been another. truth is, there is very little if any original thinking.

 

[Piano Man]

Ayn Rand is nothing but your typical "reactionary" who somehow gained acceptance with the bourgeoisie in order for themselves to explain why they were a bunch of selfish pricks. I can't believe people believe in her crap.:disgust:

 

[XMan]

My ex-girlfriend who dumped me because a "Xerox technician isn't good enough" was a huuuuuuge Ayn Rand fan. Conversely, I don't think I'll ever be reading any of her stuff.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Ayn Rand is nothing but your typical "reactionary" who somehow gained acceptance with the bourgeoisie in order for themselves to explain why they were a bunch of selfish pricks. I can't believe people believe in her crap.:disgust:

Spoken like a good compliant Communist. You must lay awake at night wondering why Communism hasn't taken off yet! BTW, is Cynthia McKinney one of your idols?

Xerox Man, I doubt I'll be reading any of Ann Rand's books either. Atlas Shrugged is about three inches thick! :Q

 

[MisterPresident]

On a somewhat related note, C-SPAN is doing an American Writers series, and Ayn Rand will be the subject this Monday at 8pm.

Text

 

[Ornery]

Introducing Objectivism

• "The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."
  - Ayn Rand, 1962

 

[unclebabar]

Having read _The Fountainhead_ and that other semi-autobiographical book set in Russian, I'll have to side with Piano Man and proclaim Ayn Rand a flake.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Ayn Rand is nothing but your typical "reactionary" who somehow gained acceptance with the bourgeoisie in order for themselves to explain why they were a bunch of selfish pricks. I can't believe people believe in her crap.:disgust:

Spoken like a good compliant Communist. You must lay awake at night wondering why Communism hasn't taken off yet! BTW, is Cynthia McKinney one of your idols?

Xerox Man, I doubt I'll be reading any of Ann Rand's books either. Atlas Shrugged is about three inches thick! :Q

Thank you for calling me a communist, it makes it easier to prove my point because that is exactly the same "reactionary" comment that most Ayn Rand fan's would use(especially during the communist scare). If you believe in the egoist doctrine, by all means do what you want, and believe what you want. But if you are more than a selfserving demigod, you might want to rethink your objectivist philosphy.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: MisterPresident
On a somewhat related note, C-SPAN is doing an American Writers series, and Ayn Rand will be the subject this Monday at 8pm.

Text

I love watching that series. Good call MisterPresident.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Thank you for calling me a communist, it makes it easier to prove my point because that is exactly the same "reactionary" comment that most Ayn Rand fan's would use(especially during the communist scare). If you believe in the egoist doctrine, by all means do what you want, and believe what you want. But if you are more than a selfserving demigod, you might want to rethink your objectivist philosphy.

I've seen UNENLIGHTENED SELFISHNESS in action, eg. MLB Players going on strike this season. It is clearly NOT in their best interest to do so and the issues they are fighting for are not clearly in their own best interest or it is hard to convince any %age of the population that it is because the issues are soo unclear. this is a clear eg. of unenlightened selfishness. on the other hand, much of what ayn rand describes, tho not an new or unique philosophy, definitely has merit. calling her nothing but a reactionary earns you the same title. because all your doing is name calling and not giving any evidence of how her philosophies were wrong.

i'm clearly not a GUNGHO ayn rand supporter, but i believe that totally dismissing her is somewhat naive also.

 

[Piano Man]

I call her a reactionary, becuase she grew up under a communist regime that I think everyone can agree on as being extremely suffocationg, and repressive. So when she came to the US, she had such hatred towards the communist East, that she went completely opposite, to the extreme. That is why she is a reactionary. I'm not saying that everything she says is a bunch of crap, but she is an egoist, and it is my own philosphy that anything coming from the egoist doctrine is inherently flawed. The only reason she gained popularity was because she was an ex-russian speaking out against Communist Russia during the communist scare. But that is my opinion, of course. We are discussing philosophy here, where truth is always changing and very hard to find.

 

[PlatinumGold]

I call her a reactionary, becuase she grew up under a communist regime that I think everyone can agree on as being extremely suffocationg, and repressive. So when she came to the US, she had such hatred towards the communist East, that she went completely opposite, to the extreme. That is why she is a reactionary. I'm not saying that everything she says is a bunch of crap, but she is an egoist, and it is my own philosphy that anything coming from the egoist doctrine is inherently flawed. The only reason she gained popularity was because she was an ex-russian speaking out against Communist Russia during the communist scare. But that is my opinion, of course. We are discussing philosophy here, where truth is always changing and very hard to find.

The problem with labeling her a Reactionary and dismissing her is that it gives the impression that her work was w/o meaning. actually a lot of "Philosophers" could be labeled reactionary. much of philosophy is give and take from one extreme to another. you go from adam smith to karl marx and it would be easy to label marx a reactionary to smith but that isn't anywhere near the whole truth. labeling her a reactionay and acting as if that is enough is the same type of generalization that is also refered to as Racism.

i believe that her work, tho i'm not a complete follower, deserves more than just a label.

 

[Ornery]

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

• 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute ? facts are facts, independent of man?s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
  
  2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man?s senses) is man?s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
  
  3. Man ? every man ? is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
  
  4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man?s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Truly, The Rantings Of A Lunatic!

I'd LOVE to hear how ANYBODY on this planet can disagree with any of that!

 

[PlatinumGold]

any night time or west coast contributers?