14

Stopping the motor of the world

Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago to The Gulch: General
84 comments | Share | Flag

The link above includes fellow Gulcher David Kelley's interpretation intermixed with AS2.

Over the last couple of days on a different thread, I was in disagreement over whether or not John Galt ever committed sabotage. The failure of the interlocker just prior to "switching via lanterns" is an example of one case that I think, but cannot prove, was an act of sabotage.

Today I started looking at my AS2 DVD and saw the following:

Jeff Allen, recounting John Galt's walkout:

'I will put an end to this, once and for all,' he said. His voice was clear and without feeling. That was all he said and started to walk out. He walked down the length of the place, in the white light, not hurrying and not noticing any of us. Nobody moved to stop him. Gerald Starnes cried suddenly after him, 'How?' He turned and answered, 'I will stop the motor of the world.' Then he walked out.

Now I ask myself, and all of you, how could someone stop the motor of the world by only passively waiting for failure after failure? Many of them, such as the Amtrak debacle or the Taggart Tunnel, were caused by the errors of men. Some were due to lack of maintenance. The cause of some failures is intentionally left vague by Rand, however. The failing of multiple Cu wires in multiple places is an example.

D'Anconia blew up his own mines.
Rearden said he would blow up his own mills (but didn't) near the end of AS2.
Danneskjold resorted to piracy.

Why do people have a hard time accepting the possibility that Galt could have been "the destroyer". After all, he said he would stop the motor of the world. That is not passive.

Jeff Allen: "Maybe that's him, doing what he said. Stopping the motor of the world."

I don't think that lessens Galt at all in my mind.

I look forward to your insights.



All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago
    I think it would depend on whether one was destroying something the government built through force. Taggart Transcontinental was so compromised in this regard with James Taggart at the helm that I would not be upset if John Galt did sabotage. It could be argued that Dagny was just partially helping the looters by keeping the railroad going. Actually, I feel bad whenever I make money trading with other people and then have to share it with the looters
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 11 months ago
    I just see Galt's part as passive. The world was already on its path to ultimate suicide. He just helped it along. his contribution/"offense" if any, was one of omission not commission.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 11 months ago
    by the way the usa is the economic engine of the world so as we decline as we are we will or are taking the rest of the world down with us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 11 months ago
    I strayed one time from not living my life for the benefit of others since. It suited me to do so. I don't make a habit of it. The sole exception was getting two serious students through school. The one's who keep asking for a copy of AS in Spanish.

    I found it necessary to read the book carefully many times and apply lessons learned from my own life to lessons taught in it's pages. Full understanding was not and still is not an accomplished goal.

    I don't feel at all bad about those two students. JG himself went back to save Daisy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 9 years, 11 months ago
    I do not think that Galt committed physical sabotage. When he removed himself from the enablers of the moochers and looters, he knew it would lead to stopping the motor of the world. In "Fountainhead", however, Roark did physically do so. He did so on the grounds that his ideas had been stolen and compromised. The physical damage was not entirely of his own property, but justified. To walk off a job, when you know no one else there is qualified, you know will lead to chaos, yet to stay and compromise your own beliefs and values for the profit of someone else, has to happen. Reason and fair trade must dictate. If the small motors of the company stop, so they must. Some might call that sabotage, but is it really?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Sunjock13 9 years, 11 months ago
    He simply took away the duct tape and the band aides that we all provide the looters everyday!!! It is sometimes necessary to make things worse and let them senselessly fail, than to provide the heroics to extend the inevitable. Who is John Galt?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 11 months ago
    Ellis Wyatt left it as he found it. Most of the others just walked away. Galt took the ones who built their characters as they built their empires; one rational act at a time. The philosopher Robert Kane calls these self forming actions. You build your character as you build a factory on principles and both require constant work. The men and women of reason show them selves not only by their works but by their character. Its their character that lets them stand out as individuals and made them targets for Galt. Without them organizations crumble and the copper erodes with the soul. Remove the character and the lines fail, the engine stops, and we begin to rebuild character.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gcarl615 9 years, 11 months ago
    Each of the " Galtites" play a different mindset that end up converging to Galts oath. Each did what they saw fit to stop the motor of the world and take possession of their own ability to produce and think. They removed the ability of the looters to claim those abilities as the property of the collective. JG did nothing except help each one realize the truth, which is not sabotage. Just as AR is helping each one of us understand the evil of the looters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    what can you do for them? give them more unearned what ever? it is time that the facts of reality be accepted, we have a primary population that is incapable of doing nothing except putting out their hands and taking what ever is put in them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 9 years, 11 months ago
    Any of the opinions below could be the correct scenario. Mr. Galt was not a sabotuer; he was a man who understood the workings of his current world and knew what was needed for change. He understood that everything had to fail, totally, on the path the world was following. He only needed patience. He also knew that the change needed a seed to grow anew -- Galt's Gulch was that seed which he stocked with those that had the knowledge and drive to grow the new world after the old crumbled.

    In today's world the same can be accomplished but in a much more dramatic and quicker pace. All one needs to do is invent a motor like that of Galt's 20th Century Motorworks motor and give it to society. The economy will take care of its own demise. I am not big on giving anything without fair and just compensation but if someone were to attempt to patent and sell such a devise their bleached bones would be, someday perhaps, found in the desert with several fair size holes in the forehead.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    IIRC, he actually didn't care for most of his stockholders and felt they were just moochers themselves trying to make money off of him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 11 months ago
    Direct sabotage was not needed.

    Simple entropy and average people will destroy any system.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately! This goes way beyond what Congress is capable of! It is an oligarchy that has been manipulating what is currently transpiring for almost 100 years. The Progressive movement is nothing new as is the effectiveness of the Fabian society. Both of which have been relentless in their pursuit culminating in what we are now experiencing. Obama is only a figurehead and by no means the brains behind this. He also has and has had willing co-conspirators across the political spectrum. This you can take to the bank!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by heathernilsonphotography 9 years, 11 months ago
    Galt didn't need to sabotage specific railway technology. There is no ambiguity in the writing, as Rand described over and over again how technological systems simply break down when competent people were removed from the equation. Respectfully, to infer sabotage is to miss the full meaning of the basic theme of the story, which is mind on strike, and the resulting breakdown of civilisation as an inevitable result. Galt didn't need to sabotage any particular piece of technology, just as he didn't even bother to destroy his motor model. He just walked out of the 20th Century Motor Company, leaving it on a bench. Without him, it just sat there, rusting away, until Dagny and Rearden found it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 11 months ago
    I have only read AS twice, but I think - no, Galt did not sabotage other than by convincing key people to 'shrug'.
    I agree with other comments here that it would be hard to justify respect for property rights while engaging in physical damage to property.

    The example of copper wire is interesting. When times are bad, criminals go after copper wire as it marketable.
    (Lead is another, re theft of old church roofing).
    They do not take care during removal not to damage the connected hardware.
    In AS this would certainly have been the case not just because of D'Anconia's copper mines being taken out.

    So, sabotage -yes. By Galt- no.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " Francisco could blow up his mines, because they were his." Not entirely, there were stockholders.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    how can you gift knowledge to the uneducated who are the greater part of our population?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Riftsrunner 9 years, 11 months ago
    It would never be moral to sabotage other's property. That is what the looters and moochers do. They steal or destroy the methods of allowing people to prosper. When Reardon created a miracle metal, first they tried to sabotage it's acceptance. Then they tried to Co-opt it to make everyone equal. Then they tried to cut off his supplies of the needed components. And finally blackmailed him with his guilt to lay claim to it. If Galt used any of the methods employed by the moochers or looters, would make him no better than them and prove his morality false.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 11 months ago
    I do have to wonder, however, if in our day and age there are enough people who aren't the brilliant, but the "good enough" to enable things to keep going for quite a long time. No, I don't believe it was the removal of the brilliant to Galt's Gulch which resulted in the failures, but the overwhelming burden of government regulations that was the true downfall of civilization. It was the mechanizations of one great machine rather than the aggregate failures of many which ground the progress and productivity of society to a halt. Galt's actions merely sped up the decline.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 11 months ago
    By committing sabotage, Galt, or us, would be losing the moral high ground. We can destroy what belongs to us, we can withhold from the looters that which is ours (ideas and knowledge, mostly), if possible, even take back that which was stolen (ex: Rourke), but if we destroy that which is not ours, how are we better? Besides, there is no need for that – the world does not run by itself; it needs people that are knowledgeable and capable of running it. Convincing those people that they should not gift their knowledge toward their own destruction – that is a different matter altogether.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 11 months ago
    Ayn Rand pointed out what was taking place in the world that would, if left unchecked would be the cause of economically stopping the world. She has succeeded in showing what would happen over a period of time when the country was led by the government as we have come to know it. One man can not do it on his own as many believe 0 is in the process of doing. HHe has a great deal of help from all of the members of the congress. Also, what was this guys point?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 9 years, 11 months ago
    I never thought John committed sabotage other than encouraging people to quit. Doing that would have destroyed property that didn't belong to him, and would have been against his moral code. Hank could threaten to blow up his mills, because they were his. Francisco could blow up his mines, because they were his. Yes, Ragnar stole, and ISTR that John disapproved of that (also because it put Ragnar at risk). But as someone who respected personal property rights above all, I can't imagine him sabotaging property that belonged to someone else.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 11 months ago
    Galt didn't destroy the interlocker. Doing so would have been initiating force in manner that was not self-defense and in a context that could potentially have innocent victims. It would have been a huge contradiction in the story for Galt to commit indiscriminate acts of sabotage. The other heroes of AS were very careful who was impacted by their acts of destruction.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo