Hank Rearden? or Orren Boyle?
Posted by Faramir 9 years, 6 months ago to Philosophy
I see many libertarians (and more than a few supporters of Ayn Rand) decry all restrictions on businesses, including restrictions that are put in place in response to widespread fraud. "Hank Rearden is under siege again," they cry.
Perhaps. But perhaps instead, it is Orren Boyle who is under siege, from people he has failed to pay-off.
Remember Orren Boyle? Rand wrote, "Orren Boyle had appeared from nowhere, five years ago, and had since made the cover of every national news magazine. He had started with a hundred thousand dollars of his own and a two-hundred-million-dollar loan from the government. Now he headed an enormous concern which had swallowed many other companies. This proved, he liked to say, that individual ability still had a chance to succeed in the world."
Now think of the "giants of industry" (or of business) whom we see in the news. Are they like Boyle? Or are they more like Rearden?
I think that, in most cases -- perhaps in all cases -- we just don't know. So many have popped up out of nowhwere; so many are on the covers of national news magazines; so many have built an enormous concern that has swallowed many other companies.
And, in most cases I think, that is all that we really know about them.
Now, Dagny Taggert could tell the difference, because she worked with them; she saw them; she spoke with them; she could read them in the light of her own experience -- her experience with them, and her experience with their kinds of businesses.
Can we? I don't think so, unless we have her kind of personal experience and personal knowledge.
Rand was a story teller -- a very *good* story teller. In order to tell her stories, in order to get her points across, she created fictional characters with dramatically contrasting traits. When we read about them, we could see examples of the points she was making, in the stories she was telling.
Having read about her life, I believe that she felt sure that she could tell which people she met were a "Boyle" and which were a "Rearden."
I must admit that I am skeptical about the accuracy of her assessments. I know that I am skeptical about the accuracy of mine.
This keeps *me* cautious, when I read news stories about businesses and businessmen under siege. Because not every businessman is Hank Rearden.
And not every rebuff to Orren Boyle is A Bad Thing.
Perhaps. But perhaps instead, it is Orren Boyle who is under siege, from people he has failed to pay-off.
Remember Orren Boyle? Rand wrote, "Orren Boyle had appeared from nowhere, five years ago, and had since made the cover of every national news magazine. He had started with a hundred thousand dollars of his own and a two-hundred-million-dollar loan from the government. Now he headed an enormous concern which had swallowed many other companies. This proved, he liked to say, that individual ability still had a chance to succeed in the world."
Now think of the "giants of industry" (or of business) whom we see in the news. Are they like Boyle? Or are they more like Rearden?
I think that, in most cases -- perhaps in all cases -- we just don't know. So many have popped up out of nowhwere; so many are on the covers of national news magazines; so many have built an enormous concern that has swallowed many other companies.
And, in most cases I think, that is all that we really know about them.
Now, Dagny Taggert could tell the difference, because she worked with them; she saw them; she spoke with them; she could read them in the light of her own experience -- her experience with them, and her experience with their kinds of businesses.
Can we? I don't think so, unless we have her kind of personal experience and personal knowledge.
Rand was a story teller -- a very *good* story teller. In order to tell her stories, in order to get her points across, she created fictional characters with dramatically contrasting traits. When we read about them, we could see examples of the points she was making, in the stories she was telling.
Having read about her life, I believe that she felt sure that she could tell which people she met were a "Boyle" and which were a "Rearden."
I must admit that I am skeptical about the accuracy of her assessments. I know that I am skeptical about the accuracy of mine.
This keeps *me* cautious, when I read news stories about businesses and businessmen under siege. Because not every businessman is Hank Rearden.
And not every rebuff to Orren Boyle is A Bad Thing.
Exactly! And you were able to identify this one because you had the opportunity to check him out, up close and personal.
Rather than reading about some regional ISP in the newspaper or a magazine, which is complaining about their failure to bribe a politician to pass legislation (or regulations) that would give them a competitive advantage in their market.
"A blow to free trade!" Yeah right sure. And if it *had* been passed, they would have made out like a bandit ... while their competitors would have been shafted.
Great anecdote. :-)
only say, quoting you:
"What I fear is that the Boyles are becoming more prevalent and the Reardens are becoming a vanishing breed. It is a reflection of the virus that is Washington. Like a virus, if it is not dealt with quickly and localized, it eventually takes over the entire body, and a once healthy organism dies."
As AR said, "In any compromise between food and poison......................................"
to swallow! -- j
Some of the ones that come to mind that might not fit that (but might - I'm not sure) - Richard Branson, Bill Gates (although he doesn't understand what made his success possible), the whole foods guy (can't think of his name), Bogle (of vanguard), etc.
(However, it is immoral to do something which no one would do in a laissez faire society, such as being an IRS agent. Even so, note that in the book, Ragnar Danneskjoeld did indeed depend on moles within the IRS. So, apparently, at least in fiction, even an IRS agent might have a positive moral role.)
In _The Invention of Enterprise_ (reviewed here http://libertarianpapers.org/article/15-...), the editors cogently assert that in EVERY society, some people rise and others do not and that the determinant of what succeeds is generally NOT controlled by the individual, who is BORN INTO a social context.
We believe that since the publication of _Atlas Shrugged_ (or at least since we read it), it was perfectly plain that co-habitating with the government is wrong because it is self-destructive. Do you obey the speed limits? When you are ticketed by the police for speeding, do you seize the moral high ground and assert that socialist streets violate your rights? And to what end?
Bill Gates became a billionaire one sale at a time -- as did Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, and George Soros.
I agree that governments grant favors, that I agree that they should not. Whose fault is it that they do, except, perhaps yours and mine for not doing enough to re-educate the general culture in metaphysics and epistemology?
And it's part of the reason why I am reluctant to give knee-jerk support to a businessman (or a company) simply because they disagree with a government measure that hurts them. *Or* knee-jerk blame.
It *is* complex.