• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:816] A Lesson from Atlas Shrugged

tacomancer said:
I read Atlas Shrugged, it was trash and I had to keep putting it down due to its combination of utterly boring and lack of realism.

I am actually proud I was able to force myself through it.
Click to expand...

I thought it was great until Part III, Chapter 7, when she spent the entire chapter rehashing concepts that she had beaten to death already, without advancing the plot at all. I read it all the way through the first time, but skimmed Galt's soapbox speech the second time around.

Still, I think it is all around a great piece of literature, and everyone should read it. Unless of course, they don't also read Marx, Orwell, Locke, Le Guin, and the works of other literary thinkers. If you aren't going to get a well-rounded view of things, might as well not read at all.

For those of you who have read the book, head on over to this thread to offer your opinions on Galt's Gulch.
 
The part where the plane crashed in 'the New Horizon' and she met John Galt was kinda hokey.
 
cabse5 said:
The part where the plane crashed in 'the New Horizon' and she met John Galt was kinda hokey.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but at least it didn't kill all the momentum like Galt's eternal radio announcement.
 
cabse5 said:
The quarantine for almost every state happened in March and April. You forgot, I guess.
Click to expand...

It is October. Today. Now. At present.

Trump and his virus panel never seriously considered your wild and irresponsible idea of herd immunity achieved by sacrificing millions of people.
 

The particular policies implemented by the central planners in Atlas Shrugged were ill-conceived, but in terms of authority to implement them, it was all a matter of conversational style.

Hank Reardon appreciated straightforward, transactional language. Instead of appealing to notions of 'public interest,' Tony should have just told Hank that the owners of the United States had decided that if he wanted to continue using doing business on their sovereign land, using their infrastructure, protected by their military, then he had to supply the State Science Institute with so much Reardon Metal. That was the deal on the table. Or if he felt that the advantages of doing business in the US wasn't worth the metal, he could expatriate and take his business elsewhere.

Hank was obviously savvy enough to have been aware of the terms of service when starting a business on sovereign US soil, including the clause of eminent domain. If he didn't accept the terms of service, he wouldn't have started his business in the US.
 

Well thought out.

Reardon was caught up by the changes so when he created Reardon metal, things were fine. With the sudden changes, he fought them back.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Well thought out.

Reardon was caught up by the changes so when he created Reardon metal, things were fine. With the sudden changes, he fought them back.
Click to expand...

Sure, and he had every right to take his business elsewhere once he decided that the deal was no longer in his best interest. No disagreement there.

I'm just saying that property ownership in a sovereign nation is limited in scope. For example, you can 'own' land in the sense of having rights to build on it, but mineral rights might not be included in that particular transaction, or there might be easements that apply to the property, etc. All of which are a transparent and upfront part of the arrangement that you enter into when purchasing property. Rights of sovereignty are never included in real estate transactions to private individuals, so the laws of the nation in which a property is purchased, or in which the business is started, are part of the deal. The potential of the government to invoke eminent domain is one of the risks of doing business that you have to assess when deciding whether to do business in that nation.

In the particular case of Atlas Shrugged, the politicians and lobbyists were, of course, indefensible corrupt. But in principle, for the voters to act in their own self-interest with regards to how they vote, and for their elected representatives to invoke eminent domain in the course of their duties to the electorate would not be theft. In fact, it would be consistent with Objectivist philosophy for them to do so.
 
haymarket said:
That does NOT change the fact that we would lose MILLIONS if we foolishly attempted herd immunity as the solution.
Click to expand...

You seem to be suffering some sort of cognitive issues.

The parts of the population most vulnerable to Covid are now pretty well identified: The elderly and those with underlying conditions.

The folks younger than 60 comprise less than 10% of the deaths. That's about 20,000 deaths. This INCLUDES people with underlying conditions. By any mass mortality measure, that's pretty mild. Far less than regular flu.

Protect the vulnerable and exercise mitigation procedures for those who are likely to be unaffected in any case.

This is not rocket surgery. Despite the simplicity and clarity of this, the Democrat-Socialists just don't get it.

Why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…