I’m sorry, but you are wrong. If you want to join in a discussion about The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital you need to read the fucking book. You don’t need to do so if you are just going to spot the flaws in Communism, but if you are joining a discussion about the books, especially extrapolations of various secondary plot aspects (disconnect since neither of these were works of fiction, and frankly pretty boring reads) then you’d have needed to at least read the things to be able to join meaningfully in the discussion. Trust me on this, since I HAVE read both and have been in discussions about them on this board…and have seen how frustrated the few board Communists get when folks wander in who haven’t a clue, never read the things and try and interject their opinions and thoughts into the discussion.
I think what people also misunderstand is that Atlas Shrugged is a Dystopian novel, closer to SciFi than to a book like The Great Gatsby. But beyond that, it is never AR’s intent to represent society as it is. She is quite explicit about that in her writing about her writings. In fact, she considers such “naturalistic” writings to be, shall we say… of lesser artistic value. And please note that I said “artistic value” not “monetary value”.
Agreed. And the fact that the Gulch is only a plot device to give some color and back drop to the overall theme of the book. Perhaps if some of the folks commenting or tearing on the book would bother to read the thing they would see how silly their comments are.
I can understand that a lot of people (a seeming overwhelming majority on this board) hate Rand, and hate her books. I’m cool with that. What annoys me is when folks spout off in these threads and don’t have the first clue what they are talking about, never having read the things. I mean, the answer to the OP is pretty simple, though still and quasi-interesting discussion. But the majority of the posts in this thread (those few that actually bother with attempting to answer the OP and aren’t just rants about Rand) are so off the wall it’s clear they never read the book…or, maybe, read the Cliff’s Notes version (or picked it up once then threw it away from them in disgust).
And, just to cut off the folks using Lobohan’s patented '‘reflexively defending’ gambit, I get equally annoyed when people do the same sorts of things in Cafe Society when discussing books or movies. There have been a few Harry Potter threads (to name one) where folks who obviously never read the things are jumping in and giving their two cents (and expensive at half the price) on plot points that they don’t have a clue about. At least those don’t degenerate into snipes at the author, but it’s still annoying.
Question: Who collects trash in Galt’s Gulch?
Answer: Ayn Rand was a terrible person.
And so it goes…
Of course Rand made it clear that her books were not a reflection of the way the wrold actually is. That’s not only a point I’ve explicitly made several times in this thread it’s also the entire reason for the utopia genre. Authors write utopian novels to outline the way they think the world should be.
Now if we were discussing whether or not Dagny Taggart was a realistic character, that would be an issue about Rand’s fiction. That would be the equivalent of discussing A Christmas Carol. And I agree it’s generally a bad idea to discuss an artistic work if you haven’t experienced it.
But discussing how garbage collection works in an objectivist society is not an issue of literary criticism. It’s a discussion of politics and economics, which a person can know without reading any Rand. In fact, a person who learned these subjects by reading Rand really doesn’t know them.
Or are you conceding that objectivism is a completely fictional concept that could only exist inside a novel and would never work in the real world? If Rand’s politics are as fictional as Rowling’s magic then neither should be discussed outside of the realm of fiction.
But a lot of Rand fans would disagree. They feel that Rand’s political and economic theories have real world relevance and they’re not just part of a work of fiction.
No, it goes more like this (at least as I’ve posted)
Question: Who collects trash in Galt’s Gulch?
Answer: Ayn Rand’s political and economic theories can’t answer that question.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
But discussing how garbage collection works in an objectivist society is not an issue of literary criticism. It’s a discussion of politics and economics, which a person can know without reading any Rand. In fact, a person who learned these subjects by reading Rand really doesn’t know them.
[/QUOTE]
And if the thread was ‘How does garbage collection work in an objectivist society’ then you’d be absolutely correct. But it’s not. It’s how does it work in a fictional book in the context of the story. And, interestingly enough, if you read the story there are enough examples in there to be able to extrapolate the answer out, even if there was no specific garbage collector in there.
It’s a fictional story with a sci-fi-esque theme. And the thread is asking about aspects of that story, in the context of that story, not about whether objectivism is or isn’t fictional.
Some of the theories do, some don’t. But the question in the OP was asked in the context of the actual, fictional story, not broadly speaking from the perspective of objectivism in general. There are examples in the book that answer the OP, which, if you haven’t read the book you would be ignorant of in a discussion about aspects of the book, even if you know quite a bit about objectivism (which, in your case I’ll concede you do, but in others in this thread it’s clear they know no more about that than they do about the book under discussion that they didn’t read).
Even if that were true (which it isn’t), what’s that got to do with the question in the OP, which is about the BOOK? Because, you see, the answer to the question is actually in there for anyone who bothered reading it, since there are examples of people doing menial labor in there, as well as some context for why and how that all works that can be used to extrapolate an actual answer…and answer that runs contrary to your answer here, based on someone who hasn’t bothered reading it but who, none the less, wants to interject into a thread on the subject.
Dude, you seriously need to dial it back.
Your answer, according to The Book, is basically “A Wizard did it.” For the most part, that really isn’t an acceptable answer, even if The Book posits it as such. In any discussion of works of fiction, people (some of whom have not actually read it) are quite free to discuss the illogical aspects of it and ask questions. This isn’t thread shitting. If, by chance, you were to actually discuss these questions and provide the answers like a reasonable person (which you are rapidly wandering away from), then there would be a more valuable discussion going on.
[QUOTE=Chimera]
Your answer, according to The Book, is basically “A Wizard did it.” For the most part, that really isn’t an acceptable answer, even if The Book posits it as such.
[/QUOTE]
Reading comprehension isn’t your thing, is it? 
Or, to put it another way, that wasn’t what I basically said at all, and instead is just a ridiculous strawman that you tossed out for no real reason and simply shows that you didn’t actually read any of my answers in this thread…which is pretty much off the charts, irony wise. I mean, here you are, in a discussion about a book that you haven’t read and interjecting comments about my own answer that you also haven’t read (or understood) if all you got out of it was that ‘A Wizard did it’. There aren’t enough for that.
Certainly, though their input isn’t exactly meaningful.
Clearly our definitions on this vary.
There WAS a (reasonably) valuable discussion going on that actually had something to do with what the OP was asking. Sadly, as in all threads on this topic, it’s degenerated down the usual ridiculous vector this one has.
If a thread goes off topic and you continue to post on the hijack instead of ignoring it, I would say that you are equally to blame for its derailment.
Settle down. Go back to the actual topic and ignore the irrelevant stuff.
= = =
Chimera, you have not been blameless either in hijacking the thread or in ratcheting up the anger, here. XT does need to dial it back, but so do you.
[ /Moderating ]
Ok, Tom…fair enough. My apologies.
Objectivism shares a common flaw with Marxism, the unfounded certainty that rationalism can resolve all philosophical questions, and is thereby superior to any and all competing philosophy. And the only thing wrong with that is that it just ain’t so.
Even the most callow sophomore filling out his requirements with Philosophy 101 will tell you why: the sheer and inescapable necessity of an assumption, some ground level bottom upon which all the turtles may be reliably stacked. Both Marxism and Objectivism claim that Reality itself is that assumption, that they have the facts, and anyone who does not accept their assumption is provably wrong. Even the very name trades on that presumption, that Objectivists are objective rationalists and that such objective rationalism can dissolve any and all philosophical questions.
But its still turtles all the way down. So, no. That just won’t work.
But she’s just getting warmed up, just tuning the hammers for her Anvil Chorus of lifeless and leaden rationalism. Having established this invincible truth, she goes on to measure anything and everything against it. All our systems of mutual compassion and altruism are provably wrong.
On this, I concur with Bokonon: if you are going to believe lies, and the likelihood is that you will, then at least believe the lies that urge you to be kind, strong, wise and forgiving. There will always be plenty of selfish bastards, the crop is always bountiful, we are in no danger of running low. All Objectivism manages to accomplish is to drape a threadbare robe of intellectualism over the naked Emperor. Not any more naked than the rest of us, true…but not any less.
Also, she isn’t funny. She could easily produce one hundred thousand pages of turgid, slogging prose without a single chuckle. Humor is an essential component of wisdom. I could prove that, but I’ve bored you already and besides, haven’t read any Twain today. Literary Crimes of Fennimore Cooper perhaps. Seems eminently appropriate.
Oh, and yes, I did read her books. I got better.
Since we’ve disposed of one hijack, let me offer another. I’d like to slightly modify the OP’s question.
I accept the idea that trash will pile up until it reaches such a level that some enterprising individual (or several) will be able to make money/collect gold coins by charging people to pick up their trash. I’ll assume a business model that provides a profit, whether the trash is transferred to his own property, or some fee is paid to another property owner for the privilege of dumping it there. And I’ll even accept that the obvious externalities (pollution, etc.) are dealt with in the business model, somehow or other. Thus in direct answer to the OP’s question, I’ll say “Somebody who sees a way to turn a profit”.
But my question isn’t “Who collects….” but instead “Whose trash is collected?” Are the fees such that even the low level workers can afford them, or is there some earnings level below which a resident of the Gulch cannot afford to pay? Is trash pickup available, at any realistic price, to all residents? Including the ones who live at the end of a narrow switchback road up to their scenic residence? Is trash collected everywhere come rain, shine, or snow? Or does the business model “cherry pick” the easiest, most centrally located, most accessible trash producers, leaving some percentage of the population to wallow in their own trash forever? Does it boil down to “Sure I’ll collect your trash too, all you have to do is pay me 10x, 100x, 1,000x what everybody else pays” for some percentage of the population?
Who then collects their trash? Is it turtles (or trash trucks) all the way down?
Doesn’t everyone have the power to pick up their own garbage? I’m not sure why it would just build up. The characters were not averse to doing manual labor. The person who lives on the switchback would pay more because the service would be more valuable. The person who lived next to the dump would not hire the service because it wouldn’t provide any value.
[QUOTE=CannyDan]
But my question isn’t “Who collects….” but instead “Whose trash is collected?” Are the fees such that even the low level workers can afford them, or is there some earnings level below which a resident of the Gulch cannot afford to pay?
[/QUOTE]
I guess it would depend on the business model of the person/people who went into the trash collecting business. My WAG is that, while charging a high amount means you’ll make more per transaction, charging a low enough amount that it’s generally affordable to everyone means you get more transactions…as long as your model ensures that the lowest price charged still gives a margin for profit (and is competitive with whoever else decides to also go into the trash collection business). Again, just like in the real world.
Honestly I’m not seeing why this is so complicated. A business model is a business model, whether in Rand’s fantasy world or in the real world. Obviously there are going to be complications that go beyond the simplistic model…environmental impacts or access to land fill sites (who owns the roads…what fees would need to be paid to access the site…who owns the site, etc etc). But all of your questions here depend on whether whoever comes up with the business model for the trash collection business wants to make the maximum per transaction, or have the most transactions…business models similar to many vertical web businesses today. Personally, I’d go with a model that looked at having the most transactions (i.e. catered to as many people as are feasible within the limitations of having to ensure a profit), and I think that I’d be able to undercut anyone who went the other way, at least in the long run (and, in the context of the book, drive them out of business and eventually have them working for me :p).
What is Galt’s Gulch and why should I care about its trash?
Sure, they could…just like most people could (and I even know some folks who do to save a couple of bucks). But, personally, I’d rather pay someone to do it, just like I’d rather pay someone to change my oil or fix my irrigation system. I COULD do those thins, but I don’t want too and am more than happy to pay someone to do them for me, as long as the price is right. If the price isn’t right, then I’ll look for someone else to do the job at a more reasonable price, and only if I can’t find someone will I do it myself. Basically, my time is worth a certain amount of money (to me), so as long as the price doesn’t exceed my own valuation I’d rather spend some money and have someone else do it for me than spend my time to do it myself. That’s the foundation for just about every modern service oriented business today. Of course, in the context of the book under discussion, we are talking about being back in the 30’s, so people were a lot more self reliant and/or less willing to fork over money to do stuff that they could do themselves (i.e. their time wasn’t worth the money to pay someone else to do something).
A lot more of that old fashioned virtue of self-reliance, enforced by the practical fact of not having any damned choice.
You’re absolutely correct, it would depend. And I do understand the variations of business models including those you note. But being an old hippie, I’m not so much concerned about which business, or how many businesses, or how much they make per transaction. I’m curious about the trash producers, the customers. And I view them from a real world perspective.
So, to perhaps better focus my question, please tell me if *everyone’s *trash will be picked up. Or will there be some trash producers (and here I assume everyone is a trash producer) that fall outside of the business model of whatever business or businesses engage in profitably collecting said trash. Sliding rate or flat fee, mass market or carriage trade, however the magical hand of the market divides up the pie, I don’t really care. What I want to know is:
Does the sum of the subsets (customers of trash hauler A, plus customers of trash hauler B, plus customers of trash hauler C, etc.) equal the totality of the set of trash producers? Or are some producers left out?