How Many Bricklayers Did Galt Invite to the Gulch?
Galt went around inviting famous artists, noted business leaders to the Guch, but once there, who built their houses? Who paved their streets, dug their sewer lines?
This isn't a class warfare argument; the building of a house, for example, not only takes a skilled architect, but also skilled craftsmen and industrious laborers.
If the criterion for admission is a belief in "trading value for value", surely Galt should and would have invited "ordinary" workers to the Gulch as well as luminaries like Wyatt and Danagger?
Such people exist lower down on the ladder; people who believe in trading value for value, but lack the creative ability to invent a new motor or miraculous metal. People who didn't inherit an already successful railroad or copper mines, but would be able to get a day's worth of coal or copper dug in a day's worth of hours for a day's worth of pay. Maybe they lack the ambition to go through the headache of running a company when they get more satisfaction from digging coal out of the ground. Maybe they lack the self discipline necessary to see their visions to reality, but are still able and still believe in trading value for value.
What Utopians always underestimate in their rhetoric (no disparagement of Ms Rand intended) is the example America set before them. People's abilities and worth are not necessarily evidenced by their position in life. All the creative brilliance in the world will not get a brick wall built. A brick wall built without knowledge and skill won't stand, but the most creative and brilliantly designed wall will never exist without someone to lay it up brick by brick. Someone whose creative skill may be shrouded by prejudice toward his position in life.
There may not be a place in the Gulch for someone like me. But that would be Galt's loss.
This isn't a class warfare argument; the building of a house, for example, not only takes a skilled architect, but also skilled craftsmen and industrious laborers.
If the criterion for admission is a belief in "trading value for value", surely Galt should and would have invited "ordinary" workers to the Gulch as well as luminaries like Wyatt and Danagger?
Such people exist lower down on the ladder; people who believe in trading value for value, but lack the creative ability to invent a new motor or miraculous metal. People who didn't inherit an already successful railroad or copper mines, but would be able to get a day's worth of coal or copper dug in a day's worth of hours for a day's worth of pay. Maybe they lack the ambition to go through the headache of running a company when they get more satisfaction from digging coal out of the ground. Maybe they lack the self discipline necessary to see their visions to reality, but are still able and still believe in trading value for value.
What Utopians always underestimate in their rhetoric (no disparagement of Ms Rand intended) is the example America set before them. People's abilities and worth are not necessarily evidenced by their position in life. All the creative brilliance in the world will not get a brick wall built. A brick wall built without knowledge and skill won't stand, but the most creative and brilliantly designed wall will never exist without someone to lay it up brick by brick. Someone whose creative skill may be shrouded by prejudice toward his position in life.
There may not be a place in the Gulch for someone like me. But that would be Galt's loss.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
And yes, my friend (a skilled builder of 30+ years) has been screwed over royally by the local council control freaks, about six times I think. He gave up trying about a year ago. They refuse to budge. It pisses me off. It's HIS F***ING LAND!
Somehow, I think you do all right in the ammo dept. :D
Keep your powder dry Brother!
Larry
Let's take a deep breath, and do some introspective analysis here.
Don't we cherish reason, above all else?
And...isn't Hiraghm simply applying reason to the logistics of actually building the Atlantis, as shown, in the novel?
Ayn Rand could have resolved this with more detail, but she didn't. It is, therefore, rational for us to subjectively 'flesh' out the missing details...just as the OP has done.
His opinion has a much weight as mine, or yours, since Ayn Rand left that to our imagination. We can disagree with his conclusion...but should support his right to state his case, especially since he has answered every post with arguably rational examples.
To do any less, would be the poster child for hypocrisy.
good segue
Since a 3D printer runs off of 115/120 volt AC...I want the contract for the extension cord!
I locked the door on a profitable business, a labor I loved, a building that my wife, children and I rebuilt and expanded with our own hands, sweat and blood. Then I sold the building for $1 less than I had invested, sold equipment for less than I'd paid for it and dropped inventory I'd created by my hands into garbage cans. All so that the government that believes it has first rights to every dollar I can create, can leave my door with no dollar of mine to "spread around".
Now I practice the skills that will allow me to survive as the roof falls in on the foolish moochers heads. I earn no money that is taxable. When I find a person of like mind that has a skill I can benefit from and he is of like mind, we trade value for value, skill for skill. Outsiders need not apply. :D
My hobby is BenchRest. Of course being a stupid bricklayer I'm not smart enough to use a micrometer while manufacturing ammunition to specs no factory can therefore i will die soon.
Crazy skills;)
Good chance your friend got bamboozled by a Mouch.
Don't like what Roark designs? Hire somebody else! DUH
I am excoriating him for not listening to the answers he doesn't agree with, and not referring to the expert on "what Rand means" - Rand.
"Someone whose creative skill may be shrouded by prejudice toward his position in life. "
maybe better would be:
"Someone whose creative skill may be shrouded by *his own* prejudice toward his position in life. "
that's actually why I like Samantha Mathis' portrayal of Dagny better. She seemed overwhelmed by what she faced; outmatched, yet she kept fighting on. Of course, I'm a bigot; I hate Superman. The only clip from the new movie I've seen is Superman getting knocked through a building and laying there (it's my plan to eventually give that clip a closing caption of "Should have used Rearden Metal").
My heroes are inadequate. If you're impervious to bullets, doesn't take a lot of courage to stand your ground; they have to invent supervillans to challenge you.
But, Audie Murphy standing on the back of that burning tank-killer, holding off a company of the enemy. Just a scrawny kid none of the services wanted. Or the AVG, "Flying Tigers", who with only 15 planes operational had the Japs believing they had 300. Rocky, only wanting to just go the distance, to prove he ain't no bum...
So I *loved* Samantha Mathis' Dagny. She's why I watch part 2 every day; why I put it on my phone to listen to while I work. It's why I prefer the First, skinny little Eddie who comes into the room to do battle when he hears Ellis Wyatt ranting at Dagny, over the hulking brute they have playing Eddie in part 2.
If Rand didn't want us to think that objectivism was just for ubermenschen, she should have shown her protagonists fail a lot more.
Load more comments...