# Who collects the trash in Galt's Gulch? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569 "2014-02-17T23:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/641 "2014-02-28T19:20:55Z")
Damn! The Thread Police! Got me again! ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/642 "2014-02-28T19:21:24Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Not to threadshit, but how does the theme of _Atlas Shrugged_ compare to that of [the tale of Golgafrincham](http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrincham)? I sense there is an underlying similarity of a sort, but that the actual readability and entertainment value of the former is not comparable to the latter. Much in the same way that ‘Requiem for a Dream’ compares to ‘Pineapple Express’ regarding the theme of drug addiction. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/643 "2014-02-28T19:26:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Damn! The Thread Police! Got me again! I’m letting you off with a warning this time. 😉 Seriously, when someone responds to one of my posts, I want to know if they are criticizing the plot of the book or criticizing Objectivism as it can be applied to the real world. My response will be different, depending on what they are talking about. I think the plot of the book is perfectly in line with Objectivist philosophy and think those trying to poke holes in the plot either haven’t read the book or don’t understand Objectivism. However, I would not defend Objectivism as a practical philosophy to be applied to the real world as I think there are flaws in it. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/644 "2014-02-28T19:34:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, I’ve never actually seen a Picasso painting, but this is wrong. > > Picasso simply couldn’t paint, cubism can’t exist in the real world, therefore his work has no value. Rand didn’t even consider Picasso an artist. All artists beginning with the Impressionists were “post-art,” with a few exceptions, like [Dali’s Crucufixion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_%28Corpus_Hypercubus%29). To Rand, visible brush strokes were the mark of an amateur. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/645 "2014-02-28T22:09:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, I see. You’re saying it’s not realistic. We know that. It’s not supposed to be. Oh, then nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/646 "2014-03-01T04:45:35Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Rand didn’t even consider Picasso an artist. All artists beginning with the Impressionists were “post-art,”… After all, a love of Monet is the root of all evil. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/647 "2014-03-01T08:47:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > After all, a love of Monet is the root of all evil. That sounds like a load of Pollocks. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/648 "2014-03-03T00:52:54Z")
> [@For You](#): > > That sounds like a load of Pollocks. I suppose you’d rather we get rid of the banks altogether, and hide your wealth under the Matisse? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/649 "2014-03-03T00:57:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > After all, a love of Monet is the root of all evil. What gives you that impression? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/650 "2014-04-30T16:37:51Z")
Adam Lee: [10 Things I Learned About the World from Ayn Rand’s Insane "Atlas Shrugged’.](http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/top-10-lessons-strange-mirror-universe-ayn-rands-atlas-shrugged?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark) The most intriguing is this: > [@](#): > > **5. Violent jealousy and degradation are signs of true love.** > > Dagny’s first lover, the mining heir Francisco d’Anconia, treats her like a possession: he drags her around by an arm, and once, when she makes a joke he doesn’t like, he slaps her so hard it bloodies her lip. The first time they have sex, he doesn’t ask for consent, but throws her down and does what he wants: “She knew that fear was useless, that he would do what he wished, that the decision was his.” > > Later on, Dagny has an affair with Hank Rearden (who’s married to someone else at the time, but this is the sort of minor consideration that doesn’t hold back Randian supermen). The first time they sleep together, it leaves Dagny bruised and bloody, and the morning after, Hank rants at her that he holds her in contempt and thinks of her as no better than a whore. Almost as soon as their relationship begins, he demands to know how many other men she’s slept with and who they were. When she won’t answer, he seizes her and twists her arm, trying to hurt her enough to force her to tell him. > > Believe it or not, none of this is meant to make us judge these characters negatively, because in Rand’s world, violent jealousy is romantic and abuse is sexy. She believed that women were meant to be subservient to men — in fact, she says that “the most feminine of all aspects” is “the look of being chained” — and that a woman being the dominant partner in a relationship was “metaphysically inappropriate” and would warp and destroy her fragile lady-mind. Somehow, I doubt any of Rand’s own lovers ever were privileged to use her so. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/651 "2014-04-30T17:50:44Z")
I always thought that Rand’s attitude was the result of her being married to a man she didn’t respect and who drank too much. Her husband was always a background figure who never amounted to much and passively gave in to anything she wanted. This alpha-male worship nonsense of hers was a reflection of her own desire for something more. But I agree her view of sexuality and male-female relationships was distorted and bizarre. One of the things I hated most about her works. You see the same thing in “The Fountainhead”, which I think is a better book than Atlas Shrugged. But the male-female relationships in the book are still distasteful. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/652 "2014-04-30T18:39:53Z")
I found #6 to be rather intriguing: **All natural resources are limitless.** It’s _your_ land to strip out, and _you_ right to abandon it and buy _more_ land to strip out. Of course, all you have left when you are done is a lot of stripped out land, and _no_ amount of payoff will put the nutrients and minerals back into that land. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/653 "2014-05-01T13:05:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I found #6 to be rather intriguing: **All natural resources are limitless.** That entire article is just a badly done hatchet job, substituting contempt for actual criticism, as so many ‘critics’ of Rand tend to do. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/654 "2014-05-01T14:47:27Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > That entire article is just a badly done hatchet job, substituting contempt for actual criticism, as so many ‘critics’ of Rand tend to do. I might be convinced…if you tell us specifically where the author of that piece got it wrong. Which parts of her book were misquoted? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/655 "2014-05-01T14:51:37Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > That entire article is just a badly done hatchet job, substituting contempt for actual criticism, as so many ‘critics’ of Rand tend to do. You know how defenders of _AS_ tend to say to critics, “But you haven’t read the book!” and they’re usually right? You haven’t read the article. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/656 "2014-05-01T17:22:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I always thought that Rand’s attitude was the result of her being married to a man she didn’t respect and who drank too much. Her husband was always a background figure who never amounted to much and passively gave in to anything she wanted. This alpha-male worship nonsense of hers was a reflection of her own desire for something more. > > But I agree her view of sexuality and male-female relationships was distorted and bizarre. One of the things I hated most about her works. You see the same thing in “The Fountainhead”, which I think is a better book than Atlas Shrugged. But the male-female relationships in the book are still distasteful. IIRC, she cuckolded him. Her view of sexual relationships seemed to be an adversarial or competitive one where one partner exerted dominance over the other. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/657 "2014-05-01T17:46:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You know how defenders of _AS_ tend to say to critics, “But you haven’t read the book!” and they’re usually right? > > You haven’t read the article. Did too. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/658 "2014-05-01T17:48:39Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Did too. Then point out the misquotes and inaccuracies. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/659 "2014-05-01T17:56:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then point out the misquotes and inaccuracies. It’s misrepresentation more than misquotes and inaccuracies, but sure, give me a few hours. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/660 "2014-05-02T10:56:18Z")
Right. I’ll start with the second point, since it’s most glaring. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Adam Lee > "The mark of a great businessman is that he sneers at the idea of public safety. > > When we meet Dagny Taggart, Rand’s heroic railroad baron, she’s traveling on a cross-country train which gets stuck at a stoplight that may or may not be broken. When the crew frets that they should wait until they’re sure it’s safe, Dagny pulls rank and orders them to drive through the red light. " This is a blatant misrepresentation of the scene in the book. The crew does not ‘fret that they should wait until they’re sure it’s safe’. They know the light is broken, and don’t want to take any responsibility. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Ayn Rand > She heard someone moving in a seat across the aisle, and asked, “How long have we been standing?” > A man’s voice answered indifferently, “About an hour.” > … > Far ahead, she saw the figures of men standing by the engine—and above them, hanging detached in the sky, the red light of a signal. > She walked rapidly toward them, past the motionless line of wheels. No one paid attention to her when she approached. The train crew and a few passengers stood clustered under the red light. They had stopped talking, they seemed to be waiting in placid indifference. > “What’s the matter?” she asked. > The engineer turned, astonished. Her question had sounded like an order, not like the amateur curiosity of a passenger. She stood, hands in pockets, coat collar raised, the wind beating her hair in strands across her face. > “Red light, lady,” he said, pointing up with his thumb. > “How long has it been on?” > “An hour.” > “We’re off the main track, aren’t we?” > “That’s right.” > “Why?” > “I don’t know.” > The conductor spoke up. “I don’t think we had any business being sent off on a siding, that switch wasn’t working right, and this thing’s not working at all.” He jerked his head up at the red light. “I don’t think the signal’s going to change. I think it’s busted.” > “Then what are you doing?” > “Waiting for it to change.” > In her pause of startled anger, the fireman chuckled. “Last week, the crack special of the Atlantic Southern got left on a siding for two hours—just somebody’s mistake.” > … > She did not turn or notice him, but spoke to the engineer. > “If you know that the signal is broken, what do you intend to do?” > … > “Lady, I don’t intend to stick my neck out,” he said. > “He means,” said the fireman, “that our job’s to wait for orders.” > … > “We’re not taking any chances,” said the engineer. “Whoever’s responsible for it, he’ll switch the blame to us if we move. So we’re not moving till somebody tells us to.” > … > “And if nobody does?” > “Somebody will turn up sooner or later.” > “How long do you propose to wait?” > The engineer shrugged. “Who is John Galt?” > “He means,” said the fireman, “don’t ask questions nobody can answer.” > She looked at the red light and at the rail that went off into the black, untouched distance. > She said, “Proceed with caution to the next signal. If it’s in order, proceed to the main track. Then stop at the first open office.” The second bit, about her using Rearden metal because she ‘feels it in her gut’ is so blatantly wrong, that I don’t even need to argue it. I’ll just quote a few sentences on either side of the line that guy cherry picked. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Adam Lee: > Dagny makes the decision to rebuild a critical line of the railroad using a new alloy, the aforementioned Rearden Metal, which has never been used in a major industrial project. You might think that before committing to build hundreds of miles of track through mountainous terrain, you’d want to have, say, pilot projects, or feasibility studies. But Dagny brushes those concerns aside; she just knows Rearden Metal is good because she feels it in her gut: “When I see things,” she explains, “I see them.” > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Ayn Rand: > “Because it’s tougher than steel, cheaper than steel and will outlast any hunk of metal in existence.” > “But who says so?” > “Jim, I studied engineering in college. When I see things, I see them.” > “What did you see?” > “Rearden’s formula and the tests he showed me.” The third point: “Bad guys get their way through democracy; good guys get their way through violence.” I’ll give him the first part, while pointing out that in most of the book it’s not democracy but crony capitalism that she’s representing and deploring. In fairness, she’s probably not a committed democrat, I doubt she believes that whatever is voted is necessarily correct. In that though, I agree with her. The second part is again a blatant misrepresentation. Rand’s philosophy _explicitly_ notes that violence is wrong. The characters that Lee mentions in support of ‘good guys are violent’ are Nathaniel Taggart, an _ancestor_ of Dagny’s from I don’t know how many generations back, and Ellis Wyatt. The second case is interesting, because what Lee notes as ‘violence’ is Wyatt setting fire to his oil fields. These are oil fields that, in the context of the book, existed only because Wyatt developed a method to extract oil from shale. His statement is "“I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It’s yours.” This is something of a recurring theme in Rand’s books - the creator destroying his creation rather than let it be used as he/she did not intend, but in this book in particular, it’s a sidenote. There is only one character in the book that is both on the side of the good and is a violent man - Ragnar Danneskjold. The other characters do not approve of his actions. Funnily Lee makes no mention of him. My guess is he didn’t read the book either. As for the degradation thing - I have no qualms about admitting that Rand’s ideas of sex are fucked up, but again, everything this guy is quoting is nonsense. > [@](#): > > The first time they have sex, he doesn’t ask for consent, but throws her down and does what he wants This is utter shit. They’d been the best of friends for years, Rand presents tension between the two of them in the scenes leading up to sex - he’s come to see her in her office, and while he’s there > [@](#): > > She worked swiftly, feeling inordinately clear-headed. She found pleasure in the rapid precision of her hands. She concentrated on the sharp, bright sound of the phone, on the figures of train numbers, car numbers, order numbers. She was conscious of nothing else. > But when a thin sheet of paper fluttered down to the floor and she bent to pick it up, she was suddenly as intently conscious of that particular moment, of herself and her own movement. She noticed her gray linen skirt, the rolled sleeve of her gray blouse and her naked arm reaching down for the paper. She felt her heart stop causelessly in the kind of gasp one feels in moments of anticipation They go out hiking together, and Lee presents this line to back up his thesis > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Adam Lee > “She knew that fear was useless, that he would do what he wished, that the decision was his.” ignoring of course, that it’s preceded by this > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Ayn Rand: > She tried to pull herself away, but she only leaned back against his arms long enough to see his face and his smile, the smile that told her she had given him permission long ago. She thought that she must escape; instead, it was she who pulled his head down to find his mouth again. and followed by this > [@](#): > > she knew only that she was afraid—yet what she felt was as if she were crying to him: Don’t ask me for it—oh, don’t ask me—do it! Then Lee goes off on a tirade about natural resources being limitless, and those dreaded words - sustainability and recycling not featuring prominently. The book was published in 1957. Just how much did sustainability feature in _any_ writings of the period? Environmental concerns were simply not a thing back then. I’m happy to be corrected if they were. His 8th point “Crime doesn’t exist, even in areas of extreme poverty.” is just utterly wrong. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by: > In the world of Atlas Shrugged, the only kind of violence that anyone ever worries about is government thugs stealing the wealth of the heroic capitalists at gunpoint to redistribute it to the undeserving masses. There’s no burglary, no muggings, no bread riots, no street crime of any kind. This is true even though the world is spiraling down a vortex of poverty and economic depression. The last part of the book reports roving gangs of people who resort to crime for sustenance, and people banding together to resist such gangs. There are several riots, incidents of mob violence are noted, and a general breakdown of law and order is depicted. I have no clue what Lee is talking about. His 9th point, “The only thing that matters in life is how good you are at making money.” he contradicts with the quote he himself provides. I don’t even need to do anything here In a scene from part I, the copper baron Francisco d’Anconia explains to Dagny why rich people are more valuable than poor people: “Dagny, there’s nothing of any importance in life — except how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that. Whatever else you are, will come from that. It’s the only measure of human value. All the codes of ethics they’ll try to ram down your throat are just so much paper money put out by swindlers to fleece people of their virtues. The code of competence is the only system of morality that’s on a gold standard.” 10. Smoking is good for you. Again. 1957. In summary - I did read the article, and it’s a hatchet job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569.md?page=34)