Objectivist Bad Guys? Part 2

Posted by Zero 10 years, 3 months ago to Entertainment
6 comments | Share | Flag

Totally different from THIEF, but finally a "bad" guy who goes all the way - a true Objectivist.

I love this movie, one of my very favorites. I find no flaw in any of the major players! And finally a fair shake to businessman! Even a non-loathsome lawyer! Its got it all.

One interesting side note: this movie would seem to challenge Rand's assertion that rational men with proper values would not be in conflict.

While I still hold with canon, I find it interesting how our personal "worlds" can make good people adversaries who might otherwise be best of friends.

(Please note I said "canon" not dogma. One of the great differences between Objectivism and religion is the absence of dogmatic belief.)

Have you seen it? What did you think?

(Available on Netflix and...?)

SOURCE URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMNOgmIDle8


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago
    ultimately, the arbitrager repackages the goods. and I agree that this is not creating significant new real value to the world. Probably a function of fashion (WS management theory-nothing to do with objective reality in creating real wealth) or govt rules(tax, anti-trust that do have real affects and so do create real value in liquidating only because of the irrational rules).
    but the guy running the company, many of these people do not create real new value either. Think of Jeffrey Immelt of GE-he has no idea how to create 1 job. His answer is govt influence and favoritism, and like his other Fortune 500 CEO comrades, he has risen to the position much like a politician in Washington.
    The story presents two competing thought processes which are ultimately a false narrative.
    The real narrative is that REAL increases in per capita wealth happen by creating NEW technologies and disseminating those technologies and products thereof. In a true free market, although people would lose their jobs at this company, their opportunities would be huge-so huge in fact, that unless you were the founder, the likelihood you stayed with just this company your whole career, would make no sense. So-the idea that "this company has survived two world wars and a depression" is romantic only to the founding owners-likely not in the hearts of the unskilled or skilled workers unless there is something of value more intrinsic than longevity or unless this company has been inventive enough to keep up with other inventive competition.
    caveat: the longest lasting industries are food companies-which are not disruptive and new technologies do not have significant effects on their business outside of costs. Think about the new coke formulation..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 3 months ago
    If by "non-loathesome lawyer" you meant Penelope Ann Miller's character... I loathed her thoroughly.

    (First place, it wouldn't have been her to come up with the airbag alternative; and said alternative would have required investing in retooling...)

    When she told him to tell his generative organ to behave itself in the presence of a lady, I would have replied, "What lady? All I see here is a lawyer. You don't like the way I talk, in my office... there's the door. Have a nice day." And turned away from her.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo