Who collects the trash in Galt's Gulch?

She wasn’t a libertarian, and she despised libertarianism. Since you are into religion, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all based off of similar things…do you imagine they all like each other? :stuck_out_tongue:

Um, no…I’m not. I already answered this question. The fact that you didn’t read it, like you didn’t read the book under question, just makes the irony meter go up a few extra notches.

Well, you and the mouse in your pocket seem to be in accord I guess. I think ‘we’ (as in the other people in this thread) can scroll up and actually see what I have or haven’t written on the subject if they’ve a mind.

You are wrong because you are using ‘needy’ when Rand used ‘moocher’. They mean different things. To Rand, moochers were people looking for a free ride, and doing so off of the work of men or women of ability, who she saw as the engine that drives the world. In the story, briefly, she envisions a time when the moochers have gained control and are increasingly forcing the people of ability to give more and more of themselves (not just their money, but their ideas, their effort, their skills, etc) to society to keep things going. The main character in the AS decides he’s had enough and drops out. He will no longer give himself to a society he sees and increasingly being unworthy of his effort. He finds others of similar mind, and they decide that they will take down society by taking away all of the people of ability (be they maids or CEOs) from society and allow it to collapse. That’s the distinction she saw, between the people who do the work and those who mooched off of those people. You, since you haven’t read the book, are seeing this as yet another lefty class struggle, between the rich and the poor, but in Rands books there wasn’t such a distinction…it was between those who do, and those who use those who do to get a free ride. You aren’t alone in this assumption.

You might and probably won’t like what the book or underlying philosophy was ACTUALLY about, but good grief…at least try and understand what you are talking about before bulling into a discussion like this.

Back to the OP…who collects the trash in Galt’s Gulch? Easy answer…the person of ability who decides they can make money on collecting other peoples trash and builds a business to do so…or just someone who works damn hard to do the job that needs doing and can make a living for his or her family doing it to the best of their ability. That’s the answer, plain and simple. And the only reason we’ve had pages and pages to this thread is all the digression, thread shitting and assumptions by those who haven’t read the book under discussion (or claim they have while exhibiting little understanding of what they supposedly read) that only rich people were allowed into the gulch, because they assumed, like you, that this is about class, when it wasn’t.

Emphasis added.

Hence your user name is not Atlas Shrugged. :wink:

Neither. I don’t expect the general public to be experts on non-mainstream political theories (as has been noted here, you could fill a dozen threads like this one with common misperceptions about what Marx actually did and did not write), and the libertarian side has always been small and splintered. They don’t have the power to shape public perception to the degree you’re demanding, failing to do so is not mismanagement.

The funny thing is, if you actually read Atlas Shrugged, the working poor are more often portrayed as heroic and the upper class folks are more often portrayed as moochers. Rand had a particular disdain for the intellectual class, not because they were intellectuals, but because they set the tone for society at large, and the tone they set was generally one that raised altruism as the highest ideal. She considered that no only wrong, but evil.

well, that is a very good explanation and summary. very good. i’m glad that you took the time to explain it to me. i know it can be frustrating to have to explain things in detail to people who disagree with you, particularly if they are uninformed or are just being stubborn. i can’t say that i think i would have the high regard for her books that you do if i did read them but thank you for the explanation, i have a much better understanding of the main concept now.

Not only that, but Roark voluntarily chose to be an anonymous laborer rather than work for one of the most prestigious architectural firms.

If people had read the book, they would know that work was not looked down upon. Quite the opposite. It’s more a treatise on individualism than anything else. It’s The Individual vs The Collective.

Ayn Rand made heroes out of villains and got the villains of the world to believe they were heroes for acting villainously.

Now with that out of the way, I’m sure someone in Galt’s Gulch would invent a way to turn garbage into an energy source for time travelling DeLoreans.

The book is so long and rambling that you can find individual examples of almost anything within the book. The opus of the book is the 100 page radio address by galt at the end of the book. Anything else in the nody of the book that might indicate that Ayn rand believed something different is just misinterpretation of her artistic license.

You know…never mind. What’s the point?

are you talking to me? i tried as best i could to tell you i appreciated you explaining the parts of the book i had gotten wrong. you made a very good explanation as well. that doesnt mean i have to agree with the sentiments of the book too, does it?

No, I was replying to Damuri Ajashi’s threadshit, but then decided better of what I wrote and erased it.

ah, ok, well i’m sure we will bump into each other again. you do seem to know about Rand and Libertarainsim very well.

Just out of curiosity, can you describe how Hank Reardon is a “villain”?

No worries. :slight_smile: I read the books in college and enjoyed them, but contrary to what folks on this board think I don’t sleep with a copy under my pillow, nor am I in lock step agreement with everything she wrote (I was a bit repelled by the rape scene in Fountainhead for instance…and by most of the sexual scenes in either book. Rand was a freak wrt sex and sexual interaction IMHO, though that has no bearing on this discussion).

do you consider yourself a Libertarian?

I can say this, I actually like most Libertarians that I meet and/or talk too. I do think the political philosophy is self centered and callous but that is odd because most Libertarians I meet seem very smart and engaging and like decent people.

[QUOTE=Robert163]
do you consider yourself a Libertarian?
[/QUOTE]

No. I consider myself a moderate independent, with perhaps some libertarian (small ‘l’) leanings. I don’t consider myself an objectivist either btw.

ok, well here is another question you might know the answer too. a lot of times i see debates, online or in print, and people ask a Libertarian to give examples and they usually get stuck trying to explain things in real world examples. is that a weakness of the philosophy, is that my bias oversampling or do you think it is just something odd i’ve noticed but may have been a coincidence or even misinterpreted?

What’s all this about “reading the book” in order to understand? Are her ideas so complex and subtly nuanced that really smart people can’t explain them to other really smart people? Has the book some sort of magical quality, that imparts wisdom and understanding by the mechanism of turgid and relentlessly pretentious prose?

If, as is claimed, Objectivism is a wholly rational philosophy based on sound and irrefutable fact, why then would it be necessary to read a particular set of words in order to grasp that wondrous truth, in order to be one with Landroo. No, wait, that’s Star Trek, another set of adolescent drivel altogether. My mistake, but point still stands.

Good point. Who needs to study quantum mechanics in order to grasp it? I never thought of it that way before.

i wonder if it is possible for you to make examples that are anywhere near each other in degree of equivalency

The parameters were that it was a rational system based on facts. If that poster wants to move his goal posts, he’s free to do so. I’m just operating within the goal posts as they were planted.