# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/121 "2014-02-19T05:29:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wrong. > > But even if that were correct, how does that prove that “we have no choice but to declare Rand an utter failure, in terms of her “message” and living up to it’s standards” oh, funny _Rand’s heroes must continually fight against “parasites”, “looters”, and “moochers” who demand the benefits of the heroes’ labor. Edward Younkins describes Atlas Shrugged as “an apocalyptic vision of the last stages of conflict between two classes of humanity — the looters and the non-looters. The looters are proponents of high taxation, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government planning, regulation, and redistribution.”[34]_ > **[Atlas Shrugged](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged#Property_rights_and_individualism)** > > Atlas Shrugged is a 1957 novel by Ayn Rand. It is her longest novel, the fourth and final one published during her lifetime, and the one she considered her magnum opus in the realm of fiction writing. She described the theme of Atlas Shrugged as "the role of man's mind in existence" and it includes elements of science fiction, mystery and romance. The book explores a number of philosophical themes from which Rand would subsequently develop Objectivism, including reason, property rights, indivi... Galt’s gulch is where they went to get away from society, right? You can say that my description is a simplification but you can’t say that it’s not accurate since that is what actually happend in the book. ---
**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 19, 2014, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/122 "2014-02-19T05:45:37Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > oh, funny > > _Rand’s heroes must continually fight against “parasites”, “looters”, and “moochers” who demand the benefits of the heroes’ labor. Edward Younkins describes Atlas Shrugged as “an apocalyptic vision of the last stages of conflict between two classes of humanity — the looters and the non-looters. The looters are proponents of high taxation, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government planning, regulation, and redistribution.”[34]_ > > [Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged#Property_rights_and_individualism) > > Galt’s gulch is where they went to get away from society, right? > > You can say that my description is a simplification but you can’t say that it’s not accurate since that is what actually happend in the book. I’m saying it has nothing to do with your original assertion: “given the fact that plenty of other authors made a lot lot lot more money than she did, we have no choice but to declare Rand an utter failure, in terms of her “message”” Please quote her statement that other writers should not make more money than she did, in the society that we actually live in. You said it was “her terms”. Please quote where she stated that as her terms. Not what you think her terms might have been, but what her terms actually were. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/123 "2014-02-19T05:54:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m saying it has nothing to do with your original assertion: > > “given the fact that plenty of other authors made a lot lot lot more money than she did, we have no choice but to declare Rand an utter failure, in terms of her “message”” > > Please quote her statement that other writers should not make more money than she did, in the society that we actually live in. > > You said it was “her terms”. Please quote where she stated that as her terms. Not what you think her terms might have been, but what her terms actually were. Libertarianism is a meritocracy where the most talented rise to the top, correct? The success of a book is measured by three things, right? Academic reception, public reception and sales, right? Rand failed on all three accounts. As a philosopher she succeeded brilliantly. Probably the most well know philosopher of the 20th century to the average lay person on the street. Doesn’t save the fact that her books are failures when stacked up against the other top 10 authors of her decade. In fact, she is know for being a horrible author, not a good one. It is her ideas people like. ---
**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 19, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/124 "2014-02-19T06:03:41Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Libertarianism is a meritocracy where the most talented rise to the top, correct? Well, let’s assume, arguendo, that is true. The obvious question to ask would be: do we live in a Libertarian society? If we don’t, then why would we apply the rules\* of a Libertarian society to one that is not Libertarian? Imagine a communist society and asking why prices don’t rise and fall with market demand. Well, in that society, prices are not tied to market forces. \*rules that you claim exist in a Libertarian society, but that I am only accepting conditionally to see if they would apply in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/125 "2014-02-19T06:05:37Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Libertarianism is a meritocracy where the most talented rise to the top, correct? The success of a book is measured by three things, right? Academic reception, public reception and sales, right? Rand failed on all three accounts. As a philosopher she succeeded brilliantly. Probably the most well know philosopher of the 20th century to the average lay person on the street. Doesn’t save the fact that her books are failures when stacked up against the other top 10 authors of her decade. In fact, she is know for being a horrible author, not a good one. It is her ideas people like. Really? How many people do you think even know who Ayn Rand? If a poll tomorrow found that even 5% of all Americans knew who Rand was I’d be shocked. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/126 "2014-02-19T06:07:58Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Really? > > How many people do you think even know who Ayn Rand? > > If a poll tomorrow found that even 5% of all Americans knew who Rand was I’d be shocked. name another 20th century philosopher that is more name recognizable to the “average” person… ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/127 "2014-02-19T06:12:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, let’s assume, arguendo, that is true. The obvious question to ask would be: do we live in a Libertarian society? > > If we don’t, then why would we apply the rules\* of a Libertarian society to one that is not Libertarian? Imagine a communist society and asking why prices don’t rise and fall with market demand. Well, in that society, prices are not tied to market forces. > > \*rules that you claim exist in a Libertarian society, but that I am only accepting conditionally to see if they would apply in this situation. that would be a very reasonable reply if we were applying it to a more humble person than Rand. truth be told, i’m just being contrary because i dislike Rand. but on the other side of the coin, she was rather arrogant, had an INCREDIBLY high opinion of herself and her writings, so it is kind of amusing to me that here, years after, the only people who defend her are die hard fans and to everyone else, she is a joke. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/128 "2014-02-19T06:13:44Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Sure. But do you equally feel confident debating the finer points of his book(s), including extrapolations of various concepts? If you are just going to dismiss everything as bunk then WHY DEBATE THE SUBJECT AT ALL? > > That’s what I don’t get about these threads. You have folks who chime in who have never read the book, folks tearing imaginary plot holes in the story that they have never read, and then you have 'luci expostulating on gods know what…and all for a book that 90% of the posters in this or most other threads despise and basically haven’t read at all (or claim to have read while displaying a startling lack of understanding of the basics). What’s the point? Why chime in? What is it about this subject that pulls the posters out of the wood work to dis on a book that most people haven’t bothered to read or understand? > > 😛 And yet, here you are, discussing it. Come on…you got to admit, this is funny as hell, especially for a site that claims to be about fighting ignorance. The only thing funnier at this point is Chimera attempting to tear holes in the plot of a book s/he has admitted s/he has never read, and clearly doesn’t know the first thing about. My point is that you don’t have to read everything Marx wrote to spot the flaws in communism. And you don’t have to read everything Rand wrote in order to spot the flaws in objectivism. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/129 "2014-02-19T06:15:47Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > name another 20th century philosopher that is more name recognizable to the “average” person… Wittgenstein. Beery swine. ---
**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 19, 2014, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/130 "2014-02-19T06:21:21Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > that would be a very reasonable reply if we were applying it to a more humble person than Rand. > > truth be told, i’m just being contrary because i dislike Rand. Then it makes no sense to debate with you. > [@](#): > > but on the other side of the coin, she was rather arrogant, had an INCREDIBLY high opinion of herself and her writings, so it is kind of amusing to me that here, years after, the only people who defend her are die hard fans and to everyone else, she is a joke. That’s what we in the trades call a No True Scotsman fallacy. How do you determine who the “die hard fans” are, other than people who “defend” her? Alternatively, some of us like to fight ignorance, regardless of what we are a fan of. I am not fan of Ann Coulter, but if you came in here just being “contrary because you don’t like Ann Coulter”, I would correct any mistakes I thought you made regarding her statements or beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/131 "2014-02-19T06:21:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wittgenstein. Beery swine. I don’t know who beery swine is i’d say wittgenstein is the most important philosopher of the 20th century not the most well known ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/132 "2014-02-19T06:24:37Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > name another 20th century philosopher that is more name recognizable to the “average” person… Charles Schultz ---
**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 19, 2014, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/133 "2014-02-19T06:25:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My point is that you don’t have to read everything Marx wrote to spot the flaws in communism. And you don’t have to read everything Rand wrote in order to spot the flaws in objectivism. Except we’re not talking about flaws in Objectivism. We’re talking about who takes out the garbage in Galt’s Gulch. Do you apply the same standard to, say, _A Christmas Carol_? What a bunch of crap-- everyone knows there are no such things as ghosts! Ayn Rand was quite clear\* that her fictional writing was not meant to be a refection of the world as it actually is. She was not a Naturalistic writer, and had no intention of being one. \*which you might know if you actually read anything she wrote, as opposed to opining on a subject you yourself claim to be ignorant of. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/134 "2014-02-19T06:28:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Then it makes no sense to debate with you. > That’s what we in the trades call a No True Scotsman fallacy. > > How do you determine who the “die hard fans” are, other than people who “defend” her? Alternatively, some of us like to fight ignorance, regardless of what we are a fan of. I am not fan of Ann Coulter, but if you came in here just being “contrary because you don’t like Ann Coulter”, I would correct any mistakes I thought you made regarding her statements or beliefs. what? seriously, what? the point on the table is: 1- Rand had an incredibly high opinion of her writings. whereas academics, universally, pan her writings as far as their literary (not philosophical) value. 2- Nobody much defends her but her fans. She is not a noted philosopher among academics. Her impact maybe but not her actual ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/135 "2014-02-19T06:32:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except we’re not talking about flaws in Objectivism. We’re talking about who takes out the garbage in Galt’s Gulch. > > Do you apply the same standard to, say, _A Christmas Carol_? What a bunch of crap-- everyone knows there are no such things as ghosts! > > Ayn Rand was quite clear\* that her fictional writing was not meant to be a refection of the world as it actually is. She was not a Naturalistic writer, and had no intention of being one. > > \*which you might know if you actually read anything she wrote, as opposed to opining on a subject you yourself claim to be ignorant of. which reminds me, who does take out the trash? how do they get paid? what if i dont want to pay someone and it sits in front of my yard and annoys people. saying she didn’t talk about such trivial details is not the same as explaining the flaws. in fact, saying, oh, she is a naturalistic writer kind of indicates there is no good answer. the flaw remains. but we are not talking about a purely fictional work with no bearing on life, are we? she is making a statement, right? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/136 "2014-02-19T08:26:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My point is that you don’t have to read everything Marx wrote to spot the flaws in communism. And you don’t have to read everything Rand wrote in order to spot the flaws in objectivism. You do have to know what Objectivism _is_ though, right? Right? Do you? I’ll be the first to admit that Rand’s ideas have flaws, and some of those flaws are big. If you want I would be happy to discuss them. I’m no Objectivist. But I _know_ what those flaws are because I _know_ what the ideas are. You have absolutely no clue what Rand has written, what her philosophy is, yet you feel comfortable criticising it simply because of how other people who already dislike it have paraphrased it. And I can tell you that most, if not all of the ‘criticism’ that I see of her work is utterly ridiculous and made without any effort to understand or place in context the things that they criticise. In an earlier thread I challenged people who were paraphrasing thus to back up what they said with cites, and I got zip. At least you’re honest enough to admit that you haven’t read anything she’s written. I suspect most of the so called critics haven’t done so either. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/137 "2014-02-19T08:38:12Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > The success of a book is measured by three things, right? Academic reception, public reception and sales, right? Rand failed on all three accounts. As a philosopher she succeeded brilliantly. Probably the most well know philosopher of the 20th century to the average lay person on the street. Doesn’t save the fact that her books are failures when stacked up against the other top 10 authors of her decade. In fact, she is know for being a horrible author, not a good one. It is her ideas people like. Not that I necessarily agree with the nonsense about how a book’s success is measured, but below I’ve quoted how the book has performed overall. I personally don’t think she’s a horrible author at all. She’s not great, but there’s nothing terrible about her writing, and when I first read Atlas Shrugged, it was the ‘mystery’ behind why the world was breaking down that kept me reading. I really was quite engaged by it. It was only after I’d finished the book that I started paying attention to how some of her ‘villains’ resembled real life politicians in my country and the populist policies they were always keen to announce. Admittedly, I _still_ haven’t read the A is A speech 🙂 > [@](#): > > The initial press run by Random House of Atlas Shrugged was 100,000 copies. Three days after the publication date of October 10, 1957, the book appeared on the New York Times best-seller list at #13. It remained on the list for 22 consecutive weeks, peaking at #3 on December 8, 1957. Net sales of the book were nearly 70,000 copies in the first 12 months. Total sales of Random House editions reached 250,000 copies by the time Dutton, a division of Penguin Group (USA), became the publisher in 1992. > The initial press run for the first paperback edition by New American Library in 1959 was 150,000 copies. Again, it had net sales of nearly 70,000 copies in the first 12 months. > > … > > The novel appeared on the paperback best-seller list of the New York Times on at least a couple of occasions; #8 on January 15, 1961, and #9 on April 7, 1963. > > By 2011, more than 8,000,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged had been sold by its English-language publishers (a British edition was published by Penguin Modern Classics in 2007). > > Most remarkable about a novel in print for 55 years is the increasingly strong trend in sales over recent years. Paperback sales by New American Library to the book trade averaged 74,300 copies a year in the 1980s, 95,300 copies a year in the 1990s, 166,933 copies a year in the 2000s, and 261,673 copies a year in the 2010s (based on two years’ sales). After 55 years, annual sales are reaching all-time highs. Penguin Group (USA) currently publishes four print editions: hardcover, two trade paperback editions and one mass-market edition as well as several eBook editions. > > In 2009, annual sales reached an all-time high of 520,000 copies. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/138 "2014-02-19T13:24:47Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And yet, here you are, discussing it. Come on…you got to admit, this is funny as hell, especially for a site that claims to be about fighting ignorance. The only thing funnier at this point is Chimera attempting to tear holes in the plot of a book s/he has admitted s/he has never read, and clearly doesn’t know the first thing about. And yet, I watched part of that interview and found that it only reinforced the view of her that I had from previous discussions, from reading summaries of her materials, from talking to other people who have read them. I saw not a damned thing that contradicted anything I have come to expect from her. So get over yourself. You can either actually address what I’ve said and what is wrong with it, correcting it in the context of what you know of the novel, or… You can laugh and dismiss it with content free comments such as the above, which on it’s own has no value. But I guess that’s the point, isn’t it? You get to dismiss my point as saying that I don’t know what I’m talking about without actually showing that you know what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/139 "2014-02-19T13:27:48Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Rand had an incredibly high opinion of her writings. whereas academics, universally, pan her writings as far as their literary (not philosophical) value. I’m pretty sure her writing is panned for its (lack of) philosophical value as well. Probably more so than its literary value, if anything. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/140 "2014-02-19T14:43:07Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > And yet, I watched part of that interview and found that it only reinforced the view of her that I had from previous discussions, from reading summaries of her materials, from talking to other people who have read them. I saw not a damned thing that contradicted anything I have come to expect from her. > > So get over yourself. You can either actually address what I’ve said and what is wrong with it, correcting it in the context of what you know of the novel, or… > > You can laugh and dismiss it with content free comments such as the above, which on it’s own has no value. But I guess that’s the point, isn’t it? You get to dismiss my point as saying that I don’t know what I’m talking about without actually showing that you know what you’re talking about. I answered the actual OP…and from the perspective of someone who has READ THE FUCKING BOOK. But sure, if you want me to pick apart your little out of the ass and haven’t read the book plot holes, here: > [@](#): > > Then it would still come down to an impossible to keep secret, since as I stated earlier, this valley needs to be supplied with food, water, electricity, labor, luxury goods, etc; and all of that would be impossible to hide over time. They produce their own electricity, they have their own water, their own oil and they produce their own food. They are also near a rail line. This is 1930’s America when we didn’t have spy satelites everywhere, now were there a lot of air plane flights and it’s basically in a sparsely populated part of Colorado. All of this is happening when society (in the book) is in a long, slow decline and the PTB have other things to worry about than looking for something they don’t know exists. Oh, and they have a magical ray shield overhead that can shoot down unwanted planes and stuff. You see, your attempt to find plot holes in a book you never read (but you did hear an interview and no doubt slept at a Holiday Inn Express sometime in the last year) is just a side tract that everyone was ignoring. I figured you’d get a hint at how silly it was when I replied to your first post by quoting you saying you hadn’t read the book, but you just couldn’t get it. Even if it was spot on it has zero relevance to the actual OP of this thread, and is simply your way of shitting on the thread, like so many. Most likely, I’ll get a warning for being so harsh because you shitting on the thread won’t rise to the level where the Mods take note, but this will (‘er, huh? What’s the problem with shitting on the thread? I mean, it’s about Rand and Atlas Shrugged, right?’ 😕). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569.md?page=8)