Posted on 03/06/2007 2:42:33 PM PST by RWR8189
You have been educated by socialists. Cartels, oligarchies and monopolists can only be sustained by governments.
You need to read up on the Hunt brothers and their bid in the silver market to understand why it can't work without government intervention.
There are a few here in this thread.
I didn't like the Godlessness of the philosophy but I still loved the book and the spirit of the capitalists. Probably the best book I've ever read.
It's a shame the article became a plug for a totally different person and business concept.
'Atlas Shrugged' showed me what comes from the mentality of dependency. Made me never want to go there.
|
Although I found her a bit of a drama queen in her personal approach, her unrelenting arguments on the moral basis of capitalism are a bracing and much-needed antidote to the collectivist drivel to which we are daily bombarded.
130 million workers in the private sector, counting those that are subsidized with government money, directly or indirectly.
They support 300 million people.
Maybe that 130 million should go on strike?
show-off !
>>after all these years I STILL haven't got through John Gault's speech<<
That is THE "jump the shark" moment in the book.
Other than that, it is a very good warning. We are seeing very much of what it talked about coming true in western culture now. The latest salvo was france making it illegal for non-journalists to photograph or record events and then publish them or offer them for publishing.
It is a classic looter moment.
Really?
I know monopolies are certainly possible, but are bad monopolies really sustainable? And what's wrong with a good monopoly? Yes. There is such a thing.
The only bad monopolies I've seen are those that are sustained by governments.
Isn't this the book that was made into a movie involving weird S&M stuff like Patricia Neal horsewhipping Gary Cooper?
For instance, he wails on the monopolists, both government and privately sponsored. Play fair capitalism is addressed via his discussion of The Rule of Law, in which the rules of the capitalist game are known well in advance and not subject to the whim of petty bureaucrats.
My bad. That was "The Fountainhead."
Still weird as hell.
I was reading Atlas Shrugged on vacation, the first 10 pages of the speech went OK, but man, did it get monotonous. But being on vacation I managed to get through it. When I read it again a year ago, I skipped it.
Maybe there's hope for Angelina after all.
I have to admit that I skipped the John Galt speech too. The book read so well, and then 50 some freaking pages of monologue!! Holy cow! I had to get to the ending. Absorbing the tome was turning my brain to mush.
I agree with you marlon. I came away that the author was saying that giving to other people was some sort of weakness, not a strength. That the weakness belonged to the givers, not the given to's.
Now that my brain has solidified, maybe I'll tackle Galt's speech.
That was the Fountainhead
thanks for the post...
threads about AS usually degenerate into a litany of "yes, but..." comments written by intellectual pygmies, who derive self satisfaction in thinking they've found flaws in the work of a giant.
as pointed out by other posters above however, one is struck by the fact that her analysis of the mindset, motives and animating force behind the mindless platitudes offered by Pelosi, Clinton, Obama and company, remains unequaled in its insightfulness and accuracy after 50 years.
In essence what she showed is that these people, these collectivists and not so distant cousins of the 1930's German national socialists, are motivated by evil to do evil, not, as they would have others believe, by their "altruism", which is nothing more than evil intellectualized and given a new suit.
Further, she explained clearly, the only way out of the mess we now face, reason and rationality, are the only and best means available to humankind to acquire knowledge of, evaluate and make decisions about reality. It is, for example, the only way to know that the garbage spouted by democrats and other collectivists is garbage.
Every day brings new evidence of intellectual atrocities engaged in by our leaders. Today, for example, as America faces grave threats from a growing Chinese Communist military capability as well as continued threats from the ongoing islamic fascist hordes, it was announced that policymakers in the State of Washington, are considering outlawing "booing" as high school sports events. That kind of incongruity permeates all the works of Ayn Rand, not just as great storytelling, but with a precise exposition behind the phenomena of our political and intellectual leaders being seemingly incapable of even knowing what the public agenda should be, much less making good decisions.
Those who give up on John Galt's speech as too difficult or too repetitive, are like people trying to learn a foreign language who find thinking in the new language too hard, and revert to mimmiking sound patterns they have heard hoping they will have guessed the right answer, without the uncomfortable effort required to know the answer before they speak. If Ms. Rand, thought each word and sentence was necessary, as she surely did, one must wonder of her critics what are their qualifications to question her judgment? What have they written that will be as influential, as lasting or as meaningful after 50 years?
America could do much worse than to look to the works of Ayn Rand, for insight into a way out of our current ineffectual, politically correct morass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.