Posted on 01/17/2009 11:27:40 AM PST by Publius
I see this starting to happen in the "green" movement. Suddenly the highest purpose for both individuals and companies is "saving" the planet (from something unspecified at that).
That always brings to mind the words of my mountain climbing guide years ago: "Never say you conquered the mountain. The mountain let you climb it today - you might not be so lucky next time." Nature is a lot tougher than we give it credit for. But suddenly we must spend tons of money and give up many conveniences all for the sake of saving the planet. Of course, we know that that is just a smoke screen for more government control of our lives. But people really seem to buy (literally) into it. And the people telling us to pay money and give up stuff are the ones riding around in private jets.
LOL - I'm not sure what my point is. That's just what came to mind when I read that question.
Ah, James Taggart. One of my favorite villains in all of literature and, I tentatively suggest, Rand's greatest character creation. I'd place Reardon second, actually. He's an exception to my general rule that Rand's villains are more finely-drawn than her heroes and heroines. In Reardon she captures the conflict that will certainly occur in real people if Atlas really does shrug. More on him later.
But James Taggart - stem to stern, first chapter to last, you always know exactly what motivates him and you always want to choke the b@stard. The fellow who plays him on screen will have the meatiest role in the thing, IMHO. Infuriating, despicable, and delicious. Full marks to Rand on this one.
On the general topic of indifference - this is a different emotion from fear of involvement, actually, or fear of taking responsibility. Anyone who has ever worked in a large corporation has probably noticed that risk is regarded as something to be managed, to be evaluated on a more or less cost/benefit basis by persons paid to do so. That's why initiative tends to be discouraged. It has a cost. The challenge in managing a large organization is to allow for the toleration of a certain level of risk by absorbing the cost on its failure without penalizing the risk-taker. As organizations grow this tends to be more difficult to accomplish, one reason why a really good CEO is worth his or her weight in gold.
In the case of Taggart Transcontinental, one has to empathize a little with the listless employees. They'll be paid anyway, so why take the risk? Out of pride? That's the key to this one (and to any organization into which a really committed member commits more than time). Dagny certainly had her pride in it, as was only right inasmuch as her name was on it. But why should the employees? Lousy management has sucked it out of them.
Back to James Taggart and my comment about CEO's. And Dagny's astonishment at the whole thing does not reflect well on her own management abilities - if that's news to her, why? If her employees are risk-averse and intimidated, what has she done about it? The answer, that it's somebody else's job, is precisely the difficulty she notices in her people.
Could it be that Rand's fierce commitment to individualism gave her a bit of a blind spot on the issue? In Reardon especially (sorry to get a bit ahead of the chapter) we see an individual struggling to balance his own pride against the exigencies of family and a deck that is stacked firmly against him. But the object of his pride is, after all, his own creation. And so we return to the question of why Taggart's employees should have acted other than they did? Out of (shudder) altruism?
One of the complaints against Rand is that to her, only the people capable of the personal act of grand creation fully qualify as human beings deserving of respect. We see this in characters such as Eddie Willers - more of him in later chapters as I think he's a critical character in this narrative. Who will really be welcome in Galt's Gulch? How much of a god does one have to be to merit a place at the table in Valhalla?
I'd love to hear your comments on the above. May not be able to check back for awhile but it doesn't mean indifference. ;-)
Please add me to the ping list. Thx!
Every 4-5 years I buy a new copy of this book and read it again. I always find something new that I somehow missed before. It was the first book that I deliberately did not speed read through and still don’t when I buy my copy to read again. There is something about it that inspires me and gives me hope that maybe there are people who understand what makes a man (or a woman) that person who can accomplish something important and not be ashamed by being “better” than others.
Not everyone is a sheep to be lead around; though that is somewhat hard to believe after the last election. People want to be lead and be free of responsibility. This book show shows what will happen when the vast majority of Americans are sheep.
Very good!
It's been over two decades since I read this book and I was too young and silly at the time to really get it. Reading it now I realize I don't even remember much about it other than some character names and the general idea - it's like reading it for the first time. Except I do remember how it ends, but this time I can savor getting there. This is fun!
Which brings us to the parable of the frog and the pot of boiling water.
I am going to be back later to post my thoughts
That is the key (as you obviously well know) to good service and doing a good job at something...to take responsibility and ownership for it.
I feel the same way you do, simply because it doesn't have to be that way.
A chapter a week also leaves room for late comers to jump in and catch up.
Thanks for doing this!
Anyone who has ever worked in a large corporation has probably noticed that risk is regarded as something to be managed, to be evaluated on a more or less cost/benefit basis by persons paid to do so. That's why initiative tends to be discouraged. It has a cost. The challenge in managing a large organization is to allow for the toleration of a certain level of risk by absorbing the cost on its failure without penalizing the risk-taker. As organizations grow this tends to be more difficult to accomplish, one reason why a really good CEO is worth his or her weight in gold.
I've seen this first hand, as have you. I worked in a company where the fear of risk was so pervasive that it was impossible for people to do their jobs. One-line code changes in programs had to be cleared in meetings involving some of the highest players in the shop, and I'm not talking about simple change control meetings. Managers were not managing but doing the job of the person one step above them in the food chain. When we were merged out of existence and the shop closed down, it was more in the line of euthanasia than murder one.
And Dagny's astonishment at the whole thing does not reflect well on her own management abilities - if that's news to her, why? If her employees are risk-averse and intimidated, what has she done about it? The answer, that it's somebody else's job, is precisely the difficulty she notices in her people.
Good point, and you're the first to bring it up. Example comes from the top and flows down. Dagny puts the time and effort into doing it right, but the people under her, other than Eddie and Owen Kellogg, haven't gotten the message. It's as though Jim Taggart's malaise and inability to get things done have bypassed Dagny and contaminated the entire railroad.
Could it be that Rand's fierce commitment to individualism gave her a bit of a blind spot on the issue?...And so we return to the question of why Taggart's employees should have acted other than they did? Out of (shudder) altruism?
I look at Eddie Willers and Owen Kellogg, and I don't see altruism so much, but a certain pride in doing the job right. They aren't timeservers, and they aren't doing it for charity. It's an exchange for labor and quality in return for money.
We see this in characters such as Eddie Willers - more of him in later chapters as I think he's a critical character in this narrative. Who will really be welcome in Galt's Gulch? How much of a god does one have to be to merit a place at the table in Valhalla?
The kissoff of Eddie at the end is one of the most heartrending scenes in literature, next to the hanging of Esmerelda at the end of Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame. He isn't even good enough to be one of Dagny's lovers. Francisco, Hank and John get the honors, but not poor Eddie. Dagny comes across as the top alpha female, and beta males like Eddie don't make the grade. The thought of who gets into Galt's Gulch has always bothered me. The prime creators get in, but those who make the work of the prime creators achieve reality don't.
There needs to be more than one Galt's Gulch.
Got The Fountainhead, Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal and We, The Living.
May have loaned my copy to somebody and never gotten it back. (He says again. Sigh.)
Because accepting a paycheck for giving less effort than you should have is immoral, in my opinion.
This parable highlights my point of view on this:
A man came across three masons who were working at chipping chunks of granite from large blocks. The first seemed unhappy at his job, chipping away and frequently looking at his watch. When the man asked what it was that he was doing, the first mason responded, rather curtly, "I'm hammering this stupid rock, and I can't wait 'til 5 when I can go home."
A second mason, seemingly more interested in his work, was hammering diligently and when asked what it was that he was doing, answered, "Well, I'm molding this block of rock so that it can be used with others to construct a wall. It's not bad work, but I'll sure be glad when it's done."
A third mason was hammering at his block fervently, taking time to stand back and admire his work. He chipped off small pieces until he was satisfied that it was the best he could do. When he was questioned about his work he stopped, gazed skyward and proudly proclaimed, "I...am building a cathedral."
Three men, three different attitudes, all doing the same job
The way I see it, we owe it to God to do the best we can. Now, I know this is some form of sacrilege to mention God in the same breath as Ayn Rand, but...there you have it.
Double ping for later. Great book.
Great discussions. Please ping me! Thanks.
And, as you both well know, NEVER EVER allow the boss to even consider the idea that you might be smarter than him!
If that ever happens you had better polish up the old resume!
You forgot STUPID! To me that is the word most descriptive of Taggart!
Why does it not surprise me that you should show up on this thread old buddy?
A book club (well, most of 'em that I've tried) is supposed to go a chapter at a time. Mea maxima culpa.
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.