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 4.
  • 11
    Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 11 months ago
    But John Galt was not passive. The one thing--the only thing--he absolutely needed to do, was to remove men of the mind from society. He did not have to commit sabotage.

    I just reviewed the "Their Brothers' Keepers" section. There was no sabotage on any of those copper wire breaks. The description of the first one made it plain: a soft rain weighted the cable down, and it snapped.

    Ragnar's privateering activities served a specific purpose: to recover loot. Francisco blew up his mines because he knew the looters could keep going forever with them. But John Galt knew an enterprise like Taggart Transcontinental would grind to a halt within a week as soon as Dagny left it. Ditto Rearden Steel, and we know how that worked out. (Francisco knew that, too; he it was who recruited Hank Rearden directly.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By that time in the decay of a society, it is reasonable to speculate as to whether sabotage and accidents might not be investigated all that thoroughly. In today's culture there would be a week's worth of white hot intense investigation, followed by the next accident.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Remember that the wires on the phones were breaking and there was either no one competent enough or brave enough to fix them, or there were no replacement parts. Rails were wearing out and either were not being replaced prior to failure, or again, no available parts. I maintain Galt had to do nothing but wait.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The one thing I am probably most known for on my campus is teaching students failure mechanisms and how to prevent failures. The possible failure causes that are neglected invariably are those that wind up being the ones that bite you on the butt. Sabotage, particularly by recently fired employees, is a suprisingly common cause of such failures. Moreover, most systems have multiply redundant backups, particularly electrical systems like anything that would have been associated with Taggart Transcontinental.

    I knew I was going to be in disagreement with quite a few prominent Gulchers on this one.

    BTW, I did read Pendulum of Justice. I am planning on downloading Trails of Injustice later today onto my laptop that has the Kindle program on it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 9 years, 11 months ago
    I don't think that it matters whether Galt helped things along by some boyhood pranks (for his own amusement), in addition to his real job of removing the men of the minds. I am glad that Ayn Rand left this ambiguous and it would make him too mortal. At this point, I would cut all the wires I could if I thought it would help.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 14
    Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 9 years, 11 months ago
    He did not destroy the interlockers. Galt didn't need to destroy. He only had to withdraw the men/women capable of fixing the problem (or inventing something better) and wait for the system to start to fail on its own. Things break down. People can be lazy. People frequently lack training and skill. Bureaucrats who have never been in the field start dictating. Politicians have agendas that line their own pockets for further their own way of thinking (read Pendulum of Justice and Trails of Injustice. The real written as fiction). Things just fail for a myriad of reasons.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo