Skip to comments.Atlas Is Shrugging In The US And Flexing His Muscles Elsewhere
Posted on 06/23/2011 5:30:04 PM PDT by rob777
Ayn Rand was mostly correct when she wrote her magnum opus "Atlas Shrugged." She was incorrect in one important area. She assumed the final option for the wealthy and entrepreneurial class was to go on "strike" and retire to Galt's Gulch. In the modern world the movers and shakers don't strike, they migrate.
Atlas is shrugging in the US. Capital is relocated to regions where it is treated more favorably. Within the country, we see capital and jobs leaving the overtaxed, overregulated Blue states and migrating to smaller government Red states. That provides partial relief, but onerous federal policies cannot be avoided by moving within the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That would solve everything.
What happened to the Twentieth Century Motor Company, Dagney, where did it go?
Why did it go, Hank?
I found this one interesting.
With all our ills, we're still the greatest and most free country in the world.
I don't put much stock in the pretentious fiction of a "philosopher" whose worldview was based on the "virtue of selfishness". Surely we can find a better argument for free markets than from that woman.
I was reading this one as you sent the ping! How about that?
It ain't no "pretentious fiction", Capt., it's a humourless, bombastic manifesto!
Oops, sorry, I mean Kernel. It’s still unreadable, though.
When I look at the mess we’re in here in the US and compare it to Australia....
“May 2010, the National Australia Bank forecast that the Australian national debt would peak at $190 billion in June 2013.” ...”net debt is now expected to peak at 6.4 per cent of GDP in 2011-12.”
Meanwhile here in the US, we’re looking at a minimum of 190% of GDP in the next few years by the latest projections I’ve seen.
Interestingly, Australia takes the exact opposite tack as we do in the US and on average only accept immigrants with more skills than the native populace.
They’ve set themselves up to accept Atlas. If this nation tanks or attempts to enslave me as a physician, well, you can’t help but look at other options, as sad as that is.
My life is too short to waste on books filled with overlong boring speechs. I did see the 1940s Warner Brothers' hit movie .The Fountainhead. It was no good except for laughs. It featured a neurotic dingbat who tossed statues out windows and whipped lusty hero architech Howard Roarke because he was playing hard to get. The bottom line on Rand is found in Psalms 14:1:
THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD
Why would anybody pay attention to the philosophy of a fool?
Australia is dealing with their own Obama right now.
I wasn’t talking about the ordinary Atlas who leaves the country in a misguided, but benign attempt to find a better land than the USA. I was talking about the narrow special case of the Mighty Atlas who likes his workers to be sweating hard and long, poor and not American. Two totally different categories.
Dumb observation. This is fiction writing and can not be judged "incorrect." Absurd.
Could you kindly be a little more specific as to Rearden's infamous speech? I wasn't aware he delivered one in Atlas. John Galt, yes, and perhaps Francisco D'Anconia, but not Rearden.
“What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?”
even Madison understood capitalists
Read the book before you make unfounded assumptions and irrational comments. If you cannot do that, go back to DU and DK where I am sure you are welcome.
I would not be welcomed at DU. It is a site that is very positive toward atheism and abortion. Unlike Ayn Rand, I am neither an atheist nor in favor of "a woman's right to choose".
Madison was right, but I think fortunes are still safer here than elsewhere. and all things equal, the natural human feeling of national loyalty will keep most folks tied to the homeland long after mere economic logic would suggest a move.
I stand corrected. Rearden's speech wasn't infamous at all. It didn't even exist! I give credit to Hank for keeping his mouth shut then. A Rand character with the good sense not to drone on is a rare bird indeed.
Bottom line is those who are and have been working hard are tired of footing the bill of those slugs who wish not to. Which part of your liberal mind doesn't understand that?
Mulerider, this tool and his buddy N/S, have made a career here bending the truth to fit their point of view. Not surprising.
In a message board situation, ignorance is not an obstacle to expressing an opinion. In fact, it often seems to promote it. My issue is not with free enterprise, just Rand's atheism and the belief that Rand's selfishness is equivalent to the beneficial role of self-interest. We don't have to have Rand's contempt for the rest of humanity to be productive and to promote our own individual prosperity.
Rand was an atheist who was OK with abortion. That does not sound like a conservative to me. Her philosophy was built on atheism. Surely the case for free enterprise is strong enough so we do not have to rely on an atheistic philosopher and her atheistic philosophy.
A notable observation...
Again you are throwing a NS quip into the mix. We are talking about the philiosphy of A/S, not the lifestyle of the author. Unless you can you explain how going Galt translates into atheism and pro choice.
I am not saying Rand may have had other thoughts, but I am not seeing that in A/S. Was it a short term conservative epihipany, maybe so, but equating other peripheral ideas to this particular prose, is flat our wrong.
It has been some years since reading Rand but I believe that she was against any religion or followers who blindly followed without thinking. It wasnt so much religion per say but the blindly following she objected to. Since her philosophy was based on what is best for self it makes sense, like its OK to believe in a higher power but if you give up your worldly possessions or strap on a suicide belt it is wrong to self.
When talking about the action itself, I have to say that it doesn't. People do have the natural right to be sovereign over their own efforts. It's the underlying philosophy, not the idea that people should be their own master under God that I object to in objectivism.
I Prefer purging.
For a start, purge everything north and east of Manhattan
Nationalism is formed through a common idenity. I barely recognize this nation with all the ‘central planning’ dictates.
Those that believe in self determination are not going to fit in with the majority of serfs. The tipping point has been crossed when the government dependency index reached 51%.
We actually lost this country when they took the ten commandments from the town square and replaced them with moral relativism (or the whims of man) It’s getting harder to plan for the future in this country.
For example, I own a trucking company. I hear an increasing number in this country wanting to get trucks ‘off the road’. Since, LaHood as Sec of Transportation the trend towards rail has been developed. The writing is on the wall so to speak.
i have a picture of the tower where my ggggggrandfather was imprisoned in Switzerland in the early 1700’s for herecy because he was a Mennonite. That was the reason Jacob came to the US in 1729. It’s all about freedom.
Shanghai. That's in China, no?
With all our ills, we're still the greatest and most free country in the world.
Not according to The Heritage Foundation the US is #9 and plummeting. Even The Daily [Ron] Paul website links to an index that places the at the lower side of the top 20 when looking at other metrics.
Ignorance about the world and arrogance about where you feel the united States ranks in comparison to other economies is part of the reason we will continue to keep the JATO pack to the bottom of the list lit.
It doesn't, as you know.
Personally, I love the book for what it is: a great novel, with an awesome message. It is wordy in spots, but it doesn't take anything away from its message.
The fact that Ayn was an atheist doesn't bother me, because I'm comfortable in my own skin regarding my personal ethos and belief in God. When I donate to my church, or give money to a street person, in my mind I'm giving value for value. More importantly, I'm doing it as an act of free will, not as a response to government coersion.
I find it laughable that opinions can be expressed about a novel that's over 1100 pages in length. There's too much going on in that novel that must be digested in order to express an informed opinion.
"It's the underlying philosophy, not the idea that people should be their own master under God that I object to in objectivism."
A quote from Ayn Rand
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute
A quote from the Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A quote from Solomon (Eccl 9:7-9)
"Go, eat your bread with joy,
And drink your wine with a merry heart;
For God has already accepted your works.
Let your garments always be white,
And let your head lack no oil.
Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and in the labor which you perform under the sun."
So an Atheist, a Jew and Christians all have an objective philosophy differing only in that those who know God understand that it is God who has graciously granted us these Rights. The atheist stumbles upon these truths without attribution.
I don’t remember where Rand said it, and I’m paraphrasing, but Rand said she had no problem with charity, as long as it was given of free will.
Fr. Spitzer has appeared on EWTN many times and has written several books. The one on my bookshelf is "Healing the Culture."
At a reunion 10 years ago, he spoke for about 90 minutes on the topics he covered in his book, tying it into "the Gonzaga experience."
As I gazed around the auditorium, it was easy to distinguish between alumni and visitors.
Alumni were soaking in his words, as if to say, "yes, this is what I remember from so many years ago".
Visitors (like my wife), were enjoying the show (Fr. Bob is one of the most dynamic speakers I have ever known), while trying mightily to keep up with his thoughts.
Thanks for the ping.