so… a maid in Galt’s Gulch is a maid but a maid in the real world is someone who is dragging down the producers?
No. Where do you get that? Can you quote the specific part of the book that you think says that?
will you quit with the specific part of the book stuff? i am asking you, because i DIDN’T read the book. Galt’s gulch was designed so the people of talent could get away from the untalented who were dragging them down, right?
You didn’t read the book. That explains a lot.
You are making the assumption that a maid outside the Gulch is a moocher. Why would you assume that?
If you had read the book, you would know to “check your premises”.
you are talking about the book
i am talking about libertarianism
of which, atlas shrugged and the fountainhead
are said to be works of fiction
describing libertarian philosophy
are you making the claim
that in Rands work
the frequent reference to looters, moochers and parasites
is not to be construed as disdain for the working class?
Yes, I am making that claim. If you had read the book, you would know that most of the “villains” are people of means and government officials.
But let me reverse the question. Are you making the claim that in Rand’s work the frequent references to looters, etc, is to be construed as disdain for the working class? If so, why?
Had you read The Fountainhead, for instance you would know that one of Roark’s best friends was a construction worker.
You really need to read the books before making claims like you are. Where do you get your information from?
Wrong. But what would the point be in going over all of this already trodden ground again with yet another poster who, for reasons that mystify me, wants to join a discussion about an aspect of a book that s/he didn’t read…or claims to have read but obviously didn’t absorb what the book was saying or even the major plot and theme?
Boiling it down to fix your error here, Galt’s gulch was founded so that people of ability could get away from moochers who were dragging the entire society down. You won’t understand what that means in terms of the story because, well, you didn’t freaking read it. You will have many other questions and other interjections at this point about what the story (you didn’t read) means, you will want to shoot holes in the plot of the story (that you didn’t read) and will probably want to go on to say how evil, stupid and hypocritical the author was, and how she didn’t really make much money after all. None of this will be relevant to the discussion (of which there have been a few good posts about, and who’s question has already been answered, after much thread shitting, digression, tangential discussion and Rand bashing, accompanied by BG’s usual host of one liners and 'luci rambling avuncular bonhomie), but you will carry on the good fight, no doubt.
ETA: Oh, and Rand wasn’t a libertarian, nor is the book about libertarianism.
I tired reading her books and they were so badly written, in general, and so badly written, overly preachy, that I had no desire to keep reading.
What I claim is this:
Rand seems to have some SERIOUS dislike for the needy and the idea that we must provide for them. Seemingly tied to her being a child in the USSR and the abuses of that system. In that regard, I don’t fault her. But the problem is:
1- Rand dislikes the needy or more specifically dislikes that she be forced to provide for them
2- You claim she doesn’t dislike maids or the working class
3- but, the working class, due to being poor, is going to have “needs”
Now you sound just like a religious person, taking the bible when it suits your purpose and disregarding it when it doesn’t.
Rand did not dislike the needy. Again, that is an incorrect assumption on your part. What she disliked (or, more accurately, loathed) were people who claimed that people of ability had the moral (and legal) responsibility to provide for the needy. She also felt that those people were at least in part responsible for keeping the needy that way since, if your highest goal is to help the needy, what are you to do if there are none?
Now, you can argue all day about whether that is true or not, but within the constraints of her philosophy, it’s not the needy that are the problem. There are plenty of needy who would never think of asking for, let alone demanding, a hand-out.
[QUOTE=Robert163]
I tired reading her books and they were so badly written, in general, and so badly written, overly preachy, that I had no desire to keep reading.
[/QUOTE]
You should probably not join in a discussion about a book you didn’t read then. Seems sensible to me.
This is your impression about what’s in the books you didn’t read, ehe? Gotcha.
Rand didn’t think that the working poor were the needy…and she thought that many rich people were the needy who she hated. See, reading the book under discussion or one of her other books would show you the answer to your question here and would fight your ignorance on what she did or didn’t think. The main character in the book under discussion, John Galt, was in fact extremely poor and worked at a very menial job (track walker for a rail road). Would be sort of foolish for her to dislike the main character of her book, don’t you think? Well, ok, probably not, since you obviously didn’t know this. Essentially, your assumptions about what you THINK is in a book you didn’t read are wrong. This isn’t to say that, had you actually read it you would either like the story or agree with the overall theme and underlying philosophy. There are folks in this thread who obviously have read the book being discussed here who didn’t like it very much…BUT AT LEAST THEY FREAKING READ IT BEFORE JUMPING INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
I sound like a religious person because I’m pointing out that you are wrong? I’m not seeing the correlation, to be honest. I have rarely had a religious person point out that I’m wrong about stuff because of their religion. Perhaps you could make the connection for me in how me pointing out that you are wrong makes me like a religious person.
is that not a bit like saying “love the sinner but hate the sin”?
*What she disliked (or, more accurately, loathed) were people who claimed that people of ability had the moral (and legal) responsibility to provide for the needy. *
if you had any real concern for people, saw any real value or human connection to them, you would FELL that it was your moral obligation to help them. in fact, you would feel (and think) that people who thought like Rand were selfish, callous, whatever negative word you want to use. I’m not arguing with you about your claims of Rand, I’m not making my criticism personal to you, I’m saying the content of what you are saying is a logical mismatch.
I meant in claiming that Rand wasn’t a libertarian… yet libertarian thought is based upon her books. After checking the Rand institute website I see that Rand is condescending even to her own followers. It seems as if, leaving all polemics aside, I can find very little about her to admire.
There is no sin in being poor.
All I can say is: check your premises. If A, then B. But what if A is not true?
you, too, are working off of a mistaken premise:
the idea that the question, “Who collects the trash in Galt’s Gulch” actually means what it literally says instead of conceding to the fact that it is a hypothetical question about an overall concept.
but i guess in actuality, we both knew that right?
ok, so new question. if Galt worked a low paying menial job, and, Rand wasn’t against poor people, the question I have is very simple. In real life there are more people than there are jobs, and definitely more people than there are good jobs, jobs you can actually live off of. so it seems Rand is blaming the needy for being in situations by which they can’t help. if i really truly am wrong about this you can tell me how and why and i will take it into due consideration.
oh please!
tell me how it is possible to:
have any real concern for people, saw any real value or human connection to them, you would FELL that it was your moral obligation to help them. in fact, you would feel (and think) that people who thought like Rand were selfish, callous, whatever negative word you want to use. I’m not arguing with you about your claims of Rand, I’m not making my criticism personal to you, I’m saying the content of what you are saying is a logical mismatch.
it seems you are just being stubborn and polemic. it also seems as if it is not unreasonable to assume that if you REALLY have concern for people you would WANT to help them, that you WOULD help them, and that you would people who complained over much about being “forced” to help them were selfish and callous.
See, now you want to debate the relative goodness of the philosophy of Objectivism. If so, you should start a new thread. This one is about garbage collection in GG.
Some libertarian thought is drawn from Rand’s Objectivism, which is its own thing. Her work is by no means the Bible of libertarianism, and libertarianism pre-dates her work.
Hayek and von Mises, to name two, were her contemporaries, and IMHO, produced superior work.
OK then… the perception by the public at large, the very STRONG perception linking Rand and Libertarianism, is that more the fault of the public or is that more the fault of mismanagement on the Libertarian side?