Atlas Shrugged, Part 2 Chapter 4: The Sanction of the Victim

Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago to Books
35 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Summary: The Reardens celebrate Thanksgiving, and Hank ponders his relationships. He finds the Wet Nurse at his office. He goes to find Dagny, and visits with Willers on the way. At his trial, Rearden masterfully dissects the inverted morality of his judges, revealing its flaw: it ultimately appeals to coercion, but relies on the sanction of the victim to mask this. The Wet Nurse was converted to Rearden’s side. Then he met with d’Anconia to discuss sex, being a playboy, and tragedy of investing in d’Anconia Copper.

Start by reading the first-tier comments, which are all quotes of Ayn Rand (some of my favorites, some just important for other reasons). Comment on your favorite ones, or others' comments. Don't see your favorite quote? Post it in a new comment. Please reserve new comments for Ayn Rand, and your non-Rand quotes for "replies" to the quotes or discussion. (Otherwise Rand's quotes will get crowded out and pushed down into oblivion. You can help avoid this by "voting up" the Rand quotes, or at least the ones you especially like, and voting down first-tier comments that are not quotes of the featured book.)

Atlas Shrugged was written by Ayn Rand in 1957.

My idea for this post is discussed here:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

All Comments

  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I particularly like the part about free speech. The 1st Amendment protects our free speech against the coercion of the Government. I don't know where people ever got the idea that the 1st Amendment means there wouldn't be any social consequences with their family, friends, employers, customers, social media, etc. The Government should not infringe on my freedom of speech, but private property owners can.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a great exchange. When I got to this point in the book I wanted to stand up and cheer Hank on. Every freeloading relative in the country needs to get this speech!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Reardon thinking: “He noted, in weary contempt, that the three at the table remained silent. Through all the years past, his consideration for them had brought him nothing but their maliciously rights reproaches. Where was their righteousness now? Now was the time to stand on their code of justice – if justice had been any part of their code. Why didn’t they throw at him all those accusations of cruelty and selfishness, which he had come to accept as the eternal chorus to his life? What had permitted them to do it for years? He knew that the words he heard in his mind were the key to the answer: The sanction of the victim.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Philip Rearden to Hank: “But I…” he tried, and stopped; his voice sounded like steps testing the ice. “But don’t I have any freedom of speech?”
    “In your own house. Not in mine.”
    “Don’t I have any right to my own ideas?”
    “At your own expense. Not at mine.”
    “Don’t you tolerate any differences of opinions?”
    “Not when I’m paying the bills.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In a very public setting, Reardon is stripping off the facade of Justice this kangaroo court needs to keep in place. His 'permission' exposes them for the organized thugs they are. They need Hank's voluntary agreement to avoid the 'optics' of forcing him at gunpoint to comply or proceed, at gunpoint, to confinement. His actions, secondarily, benefit anyone viewing that can understand what's in play.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. He is saying, in a very public forum, "go ahead ... I DARE you!"

    Unfortunately, I think very few today would have the capability to understand such a principled stance. We live in the age of the sound bite, and any facts supporting a non-conforming view are considered just noise. Outside the gulch, of course.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think he's just being BA. He's saying "have at it! Bring it on!" He means, in my reading of it, that he refuses to back down regardless of what they do. He's saying he has no control over their actions, but he's being deliberate in his own actions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In today's world, the judge's response would be a 32 page opinion, redefining "rights", "control", "sale", and maybe even "metal"!

    Kinda like they did with "established by the states".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to d’Anconia: “You know, I think that the only real moral crime that one man can commit against another is the attempt to create, by his words or actions, an impression of the contradictory, the impossible, the irrational, and thus shake the concept of rationality in his victim.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    “And I don’t like that idea about no directives and no controls,” said another. “I grant you they’re running hog-wild and overdoing it. But – no controls at all? I don’t go along with that. I think some controls are necessary. The ones which are for the public good.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “If I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own – I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil. I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their mood requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Guilt that I am able to do it well. Sometimes I feel this. My wife and I work well, and live well. Sometimes I feel... almost embarrassment for being able to afford a fine meal, or a nice suit. But since we have made money honestly, these things should be an expression of pride. I call these feelings that I sometimes struggle with my altruist hangover.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Earning my own living, as every honest man must. That is a concept quickly being lost. Our recent generations have such an entitlement mentality. Our Government welfare state is reinforcing that. Unemployment benefits provide way too much competition to the notion that a person ought to work to survive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and do it well.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers – with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit – which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden and his Prosecutor/Judge: “You pose as a champion of freedom, but it’s only the freedom to make money that you’re after.”
    “Yes, of course. All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you know what that freedom implies?”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    The eldest judge leaned forward across the table and his voice became suavely derisive: “You speak as if you were fighting for some sort of principle, Mr. Rearden, but what you’re actually fighting for is only your property, isn’t it?”
    “Yes, of course. I am fighting for my property. Do you know the kind of principle that represents?”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “I volunteer nothing…. I will not help you preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”
    “But the law compels you to volunteer a defense!”
    There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.
    “That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen, said Rearden gravely, “and I will not help you out of it.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden and his Prosecutor/Judge: “Are we to understand,” asked the judge, “that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?”
    “I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals.”
    “What….what do you mean?”
    “I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Rearden to his Prosecutor/Judge: “A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke.”
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo