Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Atlas Shrugged: Why is this so bad?

15153555657

Posts

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »

    I've seen some of these posted in various places, but I'd never read them all til now, and they are completely awful. They're good if you like to masturbate to hating Ayn Rand, but otherwise they're pretty shitty.

    Traditionally, I prefer latina women with impressive hindquarters, but hating Ayn Rand is a close second.

    These left me underwhelmed.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I've always been amazed that there are Christian followers of Atlas Shrugged. Not just becuase Ayn Rand hated religion, but also just because the whole philosophy seems like something from the Screwtape Letters.
    "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good, and your good is yours. What one gains another loses. Even an inanimate object is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. "To be" means "to be in competition" (SL 81)."
    That seems like exactly something Ayn Rand would agree with.

    Neaden on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    People whose whole worldview can be shifted by a single book tend not to be too critical of their own views.

    MKR on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    There's a good many christians who buy into prosperity gospel too, even though it pretty much goes against everything Jesus was talking about. People who hear what they want to hear will have no problem putting blinders to anything that contradicts it.

    Dark_Side on
  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    The McSweeny piece.
    Our Daughter Isn't a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn't Read
    Atlas Shrugged.
    BY ERIC HAGUE

    - - - -

    I'd like to start by saying that I don't get into belligerent shouting matches at the playground very often. The Tot Lot, by its very nature, can be an extremely volatile place—a veritable powder keg of different and sometimes contradictory parenting styles—and this fact alone is usually enough to keep everyone, parents and tots alike, acting as courteous and deferential as possible. The argument we had earlier today didn't need to happen, and I want you to know, above all else, that I'm deeply sorry that things got so wildly, publicly out of hand.

    Now let me explain why your son was wrong.

    When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

    To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

    The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

    Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter.

    That's why, when Johanna then began berating your son, accusing him of trying to coerce from her a moral sanction of his theft of the fruit of her labor, in as many words, I kind of egged her on. Even when Aiden started crying.

    You see, that Elmo ball was Johanna's reward for consistently using the potty this past week. She wasn't given the ball simply because she'd demonstrated an exceptional need for it—she earned it. And from the way Aiden's pants sagged as he tried in vain to run away from our daughter, it was clear that he wasn't anywhere close to deserving that kind of remuneration. By so much as allowing Johanna to share her toy with him, we'd be undermining her appreciation of one of life's most important lessons: You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy.

    Look, imagine what would happen if we were to enact some sort of potty training Equalization of Opportunity Act in which we regularized the distribution all of Johanna's and Aiden's potty chart stickers. Suddenly it would seem as if Aiden had earned the right to wear big-boy underpants, and within minutes you'd have a Taggart Tunnel-esque catastrophe on your hands, if you follow me.

    Johanna shouldn't be burdened with supplying playthings for every bed-wetting moocher she happens to meet. If you saw Johanna, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold aloft the collective weight of an entire Tot Lot's worth of Elmo balls with the last of her strength, what would you tell her to do?

    To shrug. Just like we've instructed her to do if Child Protective Services or some other agent of the People's State of America ever asks her about what we're teaching her.

    After all, we've managed to raise a bright, self-reliant girl who achieves her goals by means of incentive and ratiocination and never—or very rarely—through the corrupt syllogism of force. We know, despite what you and a number of other parents we've met have said—as they carried their whimpering little social parasites away—that Johanna's defiant, quasi-bellicose nature only superficially resembles that of an out-of-control toddler, and in truth posits her as more of a latter-day Dagny Taggart than any kind of enfant terrible.

    Yes, she's blossomed into everything we ever hoped or post hoc rationalized she would. In our house we no longer say, "Who is John Galt?" Instead we say, "Who's our little princess?"

    It's sad because I've actually met this family.

    Can't be any more harmful than the family that is raising their kid without gender.

    Namrok on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Neaden wrote: »
    I've always been amazed that there are Christian followers of Atlas Shrugged. Not just becuase Ayn Rand hated religion, but also just because the whole philosophy seems like something from the Screwtape Letters.
    "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good, and your good is yours. What one gains another loses. Even an inanimate object is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. "To be" means "to be in competition" (SL 81)."
    That seems like exactly something Ayn Rand would agree with.

    You'd be similarly surprised that Jews were disproportionately involved in socialist movements in the countries they were in. Hell, Israel still views it's communes the same way Palin views villages in Bumfuck, Alabama.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    You'd be similarly surprised that Jews were disproportionately involved in socialist movements in the countries they were in.
    ...is this really that surprising? Jewish thinkers/philosophers have been prominent in socialism since, well, Karl Marx, the early 19th-century Zionists were almost entirely socialist...

    I have heard that modern-day kibbutzim are basically capitalist businesses, though.

    Duffel on
  • ArchsorcererArchsorcerer Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    People whose whole worldview can be shifted by a single book tend not to be too critical of their own views.

    Miguel de Unamuno, a spanish author and philosopher, said:

    "The least you read, the more harm is done by what is read."

    Beware those who have only read one book.

    Archsorcerer on
    XBL - ArchSilversmith

    "We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Namrok wrote: »
    Can't be any more harmful than the family that is raising their kid without gender.

    McSweeney's did an ironic article about a family raising their kid without gender, based on their love of a really popular but badly-written polemic?

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Can't be any more harmful than the family that is raising their kid without gender.

    McSweeney's did an ironic article about a family raising their kid without gender, based on their love of a really popular but badly-written polemic?

    It turns out Hunt For Red October isn't that easy to follow.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Can't be any more harmful than the family that is raising their kid without gender.

    McSweeney's did an ironic article about a family raising their kid without gender, based on their love of a really popular but badly-written polemic?

    No, that was is real. There was another thread on it around here somewhere.

    Namrok on
  • HorseshoeHorseshoe Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    So does that mean that Ayn Rand was incredibly good looking in her own mind?

    I've read both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead.

    Basically, they read to me like romance novels with an idealized version of herself as the Female Protagonist who is wooed by Handsome Geniuses instead of Fabio-esque Adonis Dudes.

    Horseshoe on
    dmsigsmallek3.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    You'd be similarly surprised that Jews were disproportionately involved in socialist movements in the countries they were in.
    ...is this really that surprising? Jewish thinkers/philosophers have been prominent in socialism since, well, Karl Marx, the early 19th-century Zionists were almost entirely socialist...

    I have heard that modern-day kibbutzim are basically capitalist businesses, though.

    That's what I'm talking about. The group with the scripture appointing an aristocracy is historically socialist, while the group founded by a guy who supposedly hated aristocracies seems to always set up an aristocracy of one sort or another.

    Kibbutzim always acted like businesses because businesses are the only thing on that scale in a trade economy, with the marked difference that everyone own and works for the company. They've been making changes over the past decade, though, as they're currently not much more viable that Palin's villages.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Namrok wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Can't be any more harmful than the family that is raising their kid without gender.

    McSweeney's did an ironic article about a family raising their kid without gender, based on their love of a really popular but badly-written polemic?

    No, that was is real. There was another thread on it around here somewhere.
    That was the thread where the parents didn't talk to other people about their kid's gender, and let the kid play with whatever toys he/she wanted and let him/her dress in whatever he/she wanted, right?

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • CharismaismydumpstatCharismaismydumpstat Registered User
    edited August 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    People whose whole worldview can be shifted by a single book tend not to be too critical of their own views.

    Miguel de Unamuno, a spanish author and philosopher, said:

    "The least you read, the more harm is done by what is read."

    Beware those who have only read one book.

    In the land of truth my friend the man with one fact is king.

    Charismaismydumpstat on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    People whose whole worldview can be shifted by a single book tend not to be too critical of their own views.

    Miguel de Unamuno, a spanish author and philosopher, said:

    "The least you read, the more harm is done by what is read."

    Beware those who have only read one book.

    In the land of truth my friend the man with one fact is king.

    Or he gets a show on fox.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    sig.jpg
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    People whose whole worldview can be shifted by a single book tend not to be too critical of their own views.

    Miguel de Unamuno, a spanish author and philosopher, said:

    "The least you read, the more harm is done by what is read."

    Beware those who have only read one book.

    In the land of truth my friend the man with one fact is king.

    What.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • DHS OdiumDHS Odium Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I read the first few pages of the thread and it's somewhat ridiculous how some people have warped events that actually happen in the book into something terrible so it supports their argument that it's a bad book.

    I read it not too long ago fully expecting to hate it. It was long, not amazingly written, but I liked it quite a bit. It had some great ideas, a cool mystery and sci-fi theme going on, and the events work precisely because of the world much of the book paints - it's certainly not our own nor would all those ideals stand up in current society. But they work in the world she paints, which is why this is a work of fiction. I think it could do for a remake and have it chopped to 1/2 or even 1/3 of it's size, but it's worth reading, especially if you're on the "I hate it" side and you've never actually read it - which it sounds like a lot of you haven't.

    Again, some of the responses are from the first 5 pages of the thread, and I figure since we're on page 85 now that these have probably been covered - or maybe not, considering how few folks here A) liked it and B) remembered what actually happened.

    1) Galt did not steal the motor. He was part of R&D, and worked on it, building a prototype. At the same time new owners took over, and instituted their policy of compensation going to need and not ability. Some people here said that's not bad, but the book precisely explains what happens under this plan - people not working, lying about their needs to get more pay (having more children to get more cash), while the honest suffer. Galt saw this would happen, and quit. He never took the motor with him, which is why Dagny could find it at the abandoned factory. He left it there as it was their property, it's just no one had realized what exactly they were sitting on. What he took was his own invention, and idea - he never stole anything physical.

    2) The tunnel incident was not in any way caused by Galt or his group. It was caused by poor maintenance and people afraid of losing their job or being punished by going against their superiors - hence why they tried to contact who was in charge. No one wanted to take responsibility or make an action. It's that apathy that the book is against.

    2a) Galt himself was non-violent, the only thing that could be considered terrorism was the Swedish dude sinking ships and blowing up buildings. It was specifically mentioned in the book that Galt did not approve of these tactics. Furthermore, he rescued the people from the ships before they were sunk, and made sure the factories that would produce the Rearden medal from the stolen formula were emptied before he leveled them.

    3) The rich and elite were certainly not above everyone else. In fact the bulk of the book is decrying the corrupt rich, the people in Washington screwing everyone else over to maintain their stature of being elite. Galt, Rearden, and Dagny never even liked being associated with those people - again what was stressed in the book was the importance of their minds, never their money, the latter was just a product of the former. The real villains in the book (corrupt bureaucrats) all had money, that wasn't the point. Hell, the working class, the poorer laborers were all held to higher esteem.

    I don't like the people on the far right who use this book as a basis for life, but I find equally repugnant the people who claim this book is pure trash, and use examples that are flat out wrong to do so. There is a middle ground (ironically there isn't much of one in the book) with regards to how to view the book. For those who have read it, you can certainly not like it, and express that, just don't use lies to do so. For those who take the stance against it, and haven't read it, there's so much misinformation of what actually happens in the book out there you can't form a valid opinion about it.

    I guess what I'm saying is, read it for yourself, and then decide where you stand. Most of the people in the media, or republicans, or teabaggers, should absolutely not be taken as evidence of the ideals the book promotes, because many break it everyday by being religious and/or corrupt/dishonest.

    DHS Odium on
    Wii U: DHS-Odium // Live: DHS Odium // PSN: DHSOdium // Steam: dhsykes // 3DS: 0318-6615-5294
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    What pages was that speech on?

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • CharismaismydumpstatCharismaismydumpstat Registered User
    edited August 2010
    MKR wrote:
    People whose whole worldview can be shifted by a single book tend not to be too critical of their own views.

    Miguel de Unamuno, a spanish author and philosopher, said:

    "The least you read, the more harm is done by what is read."

    Beware those who have only read one book.

    In the land of truth my friend the man with one fact is king.

    What.

    It's a reference to a character in a political comedy who abuses the idea that Archsorcerer describes.

    Charismaismydumpstat on
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    What pages was that speech on?

    All of them, really.

    gtrmp on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

    In the land of truth, the man with one fact is no better than anybody else.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. [...] What he took was his own invention, and idea - he never stole anything physical.

    The theft of intellectual property (in this case, the motor that he created for his employers) is still theft, even if no physical example of the IP was stolen in the process. If you want to argue that theft only applies to physical artifacts, that's the topic of an entirely separate thread.

    gtrmp on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. [...] What he took was his own invention, and idea - he never stole anything physical.
    It was not his invention nor his idea. It was the invention and idea of the company because Galt created the invention and idea for the company. It is no more his than an apprentice shoemaker's shoe is his and not the master shoemaker's.

    Couscous on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. He was part of R&D, and worked on it, building a prototype. At the same time new owners took over, and instituted their policy of compensation going to need and not ability. Some people here said that's not bad,

    Who?

    I've seen people claiming that this is a silly strawman of a corporation, along the same lines as global warming deniers who insist that global warming is a hoax that is promoted by the all powerful multi-billion dollar global warming industry. But I haven't actually heard anyone insist that this would be a good plan to implement.
    2a) Galt himself was non-violent, the only thing that could be considered terrorism was the Swedish dude sinking ships and blowing up buildings. It was specifically mentioned in the book that Galt did not approve of these tactics. Furthermore, he rescued the people from the ships before they were sunk, and made sure the factories that would produce the Rearden medal from the stolen formula were emptied before he leveled them.

    So Galt's Gulch is basically an early version of the A-Team, where you can fire thousands of rounds and have cars flip over in the air but no one ever actually dies.
    3) The rich and elite were certainly not above everyone else. In fact the bulk of the book is decrying the corrupt rich, the people in Washington screwing everyone else over to maintain their stature of being elite. Galt, Rearden, and Dagny never even liked being associated with those people - again what was stressed in the book was the importance of their minds, never their money, the latter was just a product of the former. The real villains in the book (corrupt bureaucrats) all had money, that wasn't the point. Hell, the working class, the poorer laborers were all held to higher esteem.

    Because if there's one valid criticism of the commies, it's the fact that the commies control all of the money.

    Schrodinger on
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    3) The rich and elite were certainly not above everyone else. In fact the bulk of the book is decrying the corrupt rich, the people in Washington screwing everyone else over to maintain their stature of being elite. Galt, Rearden, and Dagny never even liked being associated with those people - again what was stressed in the book was the importance of their minds, never their money, the latter was just a product of the former. The real villains in the book (corrupt bureaucrats) all had money, that wasn't the point. Hell, the working class, the poorer laborers were all held to higher esteem.

    I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that the rich and elite in the book are above everyone else. At least, not all of them.

    Julius on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    gtrmp wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. [...] What he took was his own invention, and idea - he never stole anything physical.

    The theft of intellectual property (in this case, the motor that he created for his employers) is still theft, even if no physical example of the IP was stolen in the process. If you want to argue that theft only applies to physical artifacts, that's the topic of an entirely separate thread.

    And that argument would be meaningless as a defense of Ayn Rand, who most certainly did believe that the theft of ideas is a very serious crime indeed.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Namrok wrote: »
    No, that was is real. There was another thread on it around here somewhere.
    That was the thread where the parents didn't talk to other people about their kid's gender, and let the kid play with whatever toys he/she wanted and let him/her dress in whatever he/she wanted, right?

    Does it matter? Namrok is upset that somebody indirectly poked fun at Rand, so his rejoinder is a derailing 'oh yeah? well here's this liberal family in real life that is JUST AS BAD because they raised their kid without gender or something', and we're supposed to divert the whole thread arguing about that instead of making fun of Atlas Shrugged.

    And anyway, the McSweeney's isn't really making fun of Rand directly. It's about a fictional parent pretending that their child's bratty behavior is not merely brattiness, but a noble expression of Objectivism.
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    I guess what I'm saying is, read it for yourself, and then decide where you stand.

    Lots of people commenting here have already done so, and that's why they're criticizing it. It's kind of a silly-goose move to say that you haven't read more than a single page of comments, but you're sure that everybody is just being ignorant extremists (unlike you: you're the Golden Mean) and if they only read it they'd have a different view.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I don't know if all of those specific points are in the book or not, because it's 1000 pages and I read it several years ago. But I did read it, and thought it was atrocious.

    SageinaRage on
  • DHS OdiumDHS Odium Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    3) The rich and elite were certainly not above everyone else. In fact the bulk of the book is decrying the corrupt rich, the people in Washington screwing everyone else over to maintain their stature of being elite. Galt, Rearden, and Dagny never even liked being associated with those people - again what was stressed in the book was the importance of their minds, never their money, the latter was just a product of the former. The real villains in the book (corrupt bureaucrats) all had money, that wasn't the point. Hell, the working class, the poorer laborers were all held to higher esteem.

    I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that the rich and elite in the book are above everyone else. At least, not all of them.
    my main problem with the book is that it refers to people as 'moochers' and the elite and rich and powerful as be heroic gods held back by a society of welfare queens.

    It's from the first few pages, I've probably missed a whole bunch of discussion so I apologize if I'm bringing up old arguments.
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. He was part of R&D, and worked on it, building a prototype. At the same time new owners took over, and instituted their policy of compensation going to need and not ability. Some people here said that's not bad,

    Who?
    Quid wrote:
    Wait, is this what actually happens? new owners make so that everyone's needs are met and the main character throws a fit? Seriously?

    Again, it's people going off of secondhand knowledge coming from some very biased and possibly misinformed sources.
    Couscous wrote: »
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. [...] What he took was his own invention, and idea - he never stole anything physical.
    It was not his invention nor his idea. It was the invention and idea of the company because Galt created the invention and idea for the company. It is no more his than an apprentice shoemaker's shoe is his and not the master shoemaker's.

    It was his idea, funded by the company. And he never took anything away from the company. His research, the motor, everything he developed he left when he quit. That's how Dagny found the stuff. No one at the company acted on it, and since he thought it up, of course he can take that knowledge and make something for private use out of it. I'm a graphic designer, if I come up with a swank and easy new way to make buttons for the web, and I quit, you're telling me I can never use the same methods? That's wrong, my company would have my files, notes and assets, but I'd still know the process and can use it on my personal website. Same thing here, besides the company never patented the motor he built while employed, and even if they did, again, that company never defended patents which they are required to do, or lose the rights to it. The company went under so it's moot.

    DHS Odium on
    Wii U: DHS-Odium // Live: DHS Odium // PSN: DHSOdium // Steam: dhsykes // 3DS: 0318-6615-5294
  • AtomikaAtomika rejects your reality, maaaaaaanRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I don't know if all of those specific points are in the book or not, because it's 1000 pages and I read it several years ago. But I did read it, and thought it was atrocious.

    Well, it certainly is the type of thing that regardless of opinion towards political philosophy would have fit better in a coherent collection of essays, not a smattering of several rambling and questionably-writ tomes.

    In many ways, Rand's stuff is like the Bible: too long, often contradictory, and nebulous in its directive. So that just means, like the Bible, douchebags try to monopolize interpretation and ignore/emphasize as they see fit.

    Atomika on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    It was his idea, funded by the company. And he never took anything away from the company. His research, the motor, everything he developed he left when he quit. That's how Dagny found the stuff. No one at the company acted on it, and since he thought it up, of course he can take that knowledge and make something for private use out of it. I'm a graphic designer, if I come up with a swank and easy new way to make buttons for the web

    No, you can't. At least not usually. What you make belongs to the company in 95% of employment contracts. You could make buttons that resembled the ones you made for the company, but if it were in a commercial sense, like a logo, I suppose you could be sued for infringement if they copyright it.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    sig.jpg
  • DHS OdiumDHS Odium Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    I guess what I'm saying is, read it for yourself, and then decide where you stand.

    Lots of people commenting here have already done so, and that's why they're criticizing it. It's kind of a silly-goose move to say that you haven't read more than a single page of comments, but you're sure that everybody is just being ignorant extremists (unlike you: you're the Golden Mean) and if they only read it they'd have a different view.

    You're right, it's a silly-goose move to when I haven't read the entire thread, I pointed that out. I also said I was talking about the first 5 pages of the thread, and apologized if things were being brought up again when they'd already been settled.

    And nice job throwing that insult in there, insinuating I'm perfect and I view everyone else as below me because I took a different view on a book than you did. Where did I say everyone is ignorant extremists? Where did I say everyone who was hating on it hadn't read it? Where did I say anyone who had read it would have a different view? Oh, right, I never said any of those things. I said people are welcome to dislike it, to think it's a terrible book, but after they have read it, or at least got a synopsis from a non-biased source that doesn't need to flat out lie about the contents.

    DHS Odium on
    Wii U: DHS-Odium // Live: DHS Odium // PSN: DHSOdium // Steam: dhsykes // 3DS: 0318-6615-5294
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. He was part of R&D, and worked on it, building a prototype. At the same time new owners took over, and instituted their policy of compensation going to need and not ability. Some people here said that's not bad,

    Who?
    Quid wrote:
    Wait, is this what actually happens? new owners make so that everyone's needs are met and the main character throws a fit? Seriously?

    Again, it's people going off of secondhand knowledge coming from some very biased and possibly misinformed sources.

    It looks to me like he's criticizing this more as a motivation for Galt's behavior and less as an actual policy endorsement.

    Schrodinger on
  • DHS OdiumDHS Odium Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    It was his idea, funded by the company. And he never took anything away from the company. His research, the motor, everything he developed he left when he quit. That's how Dagny found the stuff. No one at the company acted on it, and since he thought it up, of course he can take that knowledge and make something for private use out of it. I'm a graphic designer, if I come up with a swank and easy new way to make buttons for the web

    No, you can't. At least not usually. What you make belongs to the company in 95% of employment contracts. You could make buttons that resembled the ones you made for the company, but if it were in a commercial sense, like a logo, I suppose you could be sued for infringement if they copyright it.

    That's why I didn't say logo. I'd know the process of making the buttons, and could make a set for myself, sure, different colors, maybe a different opacity here and there, but same method. Nothing is actually stolen, and again, by the time Galt used that motor for more than himself (still hardly public, but among friends), the company that would have the rights was long gone, statute of limitations and all.

    DHS Odium on
    Wii U: DHS-Odium // Live: DHS Odium // PSN: DHSOdium // Steam: dhsykes // 3DS: 0318-6615-5294
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    You're right, it's a silly-goose move to when I haven't read the entire thread, I pointed that out. I also said I was talking about the first 5 pages of the thread, and apologized if things were being brought up again when they'd already been settled.

    Then why not read back for the last five pages or so? The intellectual property argument has already been beaten to death recently.
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    And nice job throwing that insult in there, insinuating I'm perfect and I view everyone else as below me because I took a different view on a book than you did. Where did I say everyone is ignorant extremists?

    Okay, I take it back. You don't need to read the last five pages; you should start off with reading comments you are actually responding to.

    Please re-read the second-to-last paragraph. The argument you are making (and I'm certainly willing to believe you didn't do this intentionally) is the Golden Mean: My viewpoint is the moderate, center, reasonable view, and everybody else is off in the extremes.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    It was his idea, funded by the company. And he never took anything away from the company. His research, the motor, everything he developed he left when he quit. That's how Dagny found the stuff. No one at the company acted on it, and since he thought it up, of course he can take that knowledge and make something for private use out of it. I'm a graphic designer, if I come up with a swank and easy new way to make buttons for the web

    No, you can't. At least not usually. What you make belongs to the company in 95% of employment contracts. You could make buttons that resembled the ones you made for the company, but if it were in a commercial sense, like a logo, I suppose you could be sued for infringement if they copyright it.

    That's why I didn't say logo. I'd know the process of making the buttons, and could make a set for myself, sure, different colors, maybe a different opacity here and there, but same method. Nothing is actually stolen, and again, by the time Galt used that motor for more than himself (still hardly public, but among friends), the company that would have the rights was long gone, statute of limitations and all.

    Those buttons could be copyrighted too if they want in all likelihood, though they probably aren't unique enough. The process is not yours unless you're programming a whole new function into Illustrator, no more than the first guy to draw a circle in the program created that process.

    You're essentially arguing that IP rights don't apply because.....I'm not sure why.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    sig.jpg
  • DHS OdiumDHS Odium Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    1) Galt did not steal the motor. He was part of R&D, and worked on it, building a prototype. At the same time new owners took over, and instituted their policy of compensation going to need and not ability. Some people here said that's not bad,

    Who?
    Quid wrote:
    Wait, is this what actually happens? new owners make so that everyone's needs are met and the main character throws a fit? Seriously?

    Again, it's people going off of secondhand knowledge coming from some very biased and possibly misinformed sources.

    It looks to me like he's criticizing this more as a motivation for Galt's behavior and less as an actual policy endorsement.

    He's criticizing it without knowing that the book explained why it was such a bad thing. Galt was perfectly justified in quitting over that. The whole stealing all the best minds so corrupt and broken society collapses? That happened well after this. It's just the case of quite a few people taking such a harsh stance based on secondhand information they don't understand, or where it's been filtered through someone else's viewpoint. It's the same reason I decided to read it after hearing how bad it was, and alot of the same complaints echoed not just here but by most detractors, and found out a lot of the information out there was inaccurate, or was taken out of context.

    DHS Odium on
    Wii U: DHS-Odium // Live: DHS Odium // PSN: DHSOdium // Steam: dhsykes // 3DS: 0318-6615-5294
  • DHS OdiumDHS Odium Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    You're right, it's a silly-goose move to when I haven't read the entire thread, I pointed that out. I also said I was talking about the first 5 pages of the thread, and apologized if things were being brought up again when they'd already been settled.

    Then why not read back for the last five pages or so? The intellectual property argument has already been beaten to death recently.
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    And nice job throwing that insult in there, insinuating I'm perfect and I view everyone else as below me because I took a different view on a book than you did. Where did I say everyone is ignorant extremists?

    Okay, I take it back. You don't need to read the last five pages; you should start off with reading comments you are actually responding to.

    Please re-read the second-to-last paragraph. The argument you are making (and I'm certainly willing to believe you didn't do this intentionally) is the Golden Mean: My viewpoint is the moderate, center, reasonable view, and everybody else is off in the extremes.

    My viewpoint isn't the center view, simply because this is discourse and there are people on both sides. Many of the people arguing against the book are reasonable, and that's actually all I've asked for, is to talk about things as presented in the book. In the early pages there are people talking how Galt blew up a train in a tunnel and other terrorist acts. Not true. As I said, the book is flawed, there's plenty to talk about without having to make anything up.

    And I just read the last 5 pages, and you are right, the discussion of the motor, theft, and IP has already been done, and Druk did a better job with it, so I can leave it at that.

    DHS Odium on
    Wii U: DHS-Odium // Live: DHS Odium // PSN: DHSOdium // Steam: dhsykes // 3DS: 0318-6615-5294
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    DHS Odium wrote: »
    3) The rich and elite were certainly not above everyone else. In fact the bulk of the book is decrying the corrupt rich, the people in Washington screwing everyone else over to maintain their stature of being elite. Galt, Rearden, and Dagny never even liked being associated with those people - again what was stressed in the book was the importance of their minds, never their money, the latter was just a product of the former. The real villains in the book (corrupt bureaucrats) all had money, that wasn't the point. Hell, the working class, the poorer laborers were all held to higher esteem.

    I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that the rich and elite in the book are above everyone else. At least, not all of them.
    my main problem with the book is that it refers to people as 'moochers' and the elite and rich and powerful as be heroic gods held back by a society of welfare queens.

    It's from the first few pages, I've probably missed a whole bunch of discussion so I apologize if I'm bringing up old arguments.

    While I won't question the quote, I think what Eddy was probably more referring to the idea that the rich and powerful within the book (those named) are in fact peeps who came into that position by sheer force of awesomeness. That guy who inherited a mining-empire was one of the best blokes around, and that Rearden fellow too.

    Though Rand mentions that the elite in Washington and such unquestionably are weak, she has no problem with making characters which are rich and part of the elite and deserve every single thing they get. It's the captains of industry and the total righteous bastards who join the strike.


    I mean, sure not all rich and elite are awesome, but those who are awesome are all part of the rich and elite barring a few exceptions.

    Julius on
This discussion has been closed.