Question About the Tunnel Scene in Atlas Shrugged

Posted by khalling 7 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
39 comments | Share | Flag

SPOILER


Alex Epstein regarding AR quote. I have noticed several posts in here regarding Mr. Epstein and his book and Congressional hearing video. I have linked to the hearing, in which he smacks down Barbara Boxer) He is an O who formerly worked for ARI (Ayn Rand Institute) and now heads up his own organization. Thought I'd bring up the topic for those who have read Atlas Shrugged. :
"In Atlas Shrugged, in the sequence dealing with the tunnel catastrophe, I list the train passengers who were philosophically responsible for it, in hierarchical order, from the less guilty to the guiltiest. The last one on the list is a humanitarian who had said: 'The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.'" -- Ayn Rand
I don't understand what kind of "hierarchical order" AR is referring to here given the sequence of passengers. Anyone know?
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGZb2GgdaM


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 7 years, 9 months ago
    Hello khalling,
    Barbara is a real piece of work... She has the philosophy of a jacka$$. It is that of your train passenger example.
    I find myself amazed, in that I agree with CG's comment.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 9 months ago
    Several years ago when I was naive enough to think that people think, I heard This Ca. Senator drivel on about some govt looting scheme of some kind and thought "she is an idiot she won't get reelected" that was over 20 years ago.
    Perfect example of why a one term limit is needed for all of congress. 520 or so other examples.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 7 years, 9 months ago
    Government, regardless of its form, is the antithesis of Freedom and of Capitalism. This caused Jefferson to write, “Who governs best, governs least.” Governance is all about the control of the population, and following the establishment of governance, the population’s money. It’s all about control and about the populations’ feeling of comfort and satisfaction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 9 months ago
      how would you define a "proper" government?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 7 years, 9 months ago
        dept of defense, a few courts and a small executive
        to carry out the instructions of a single body congress. -- j
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 9 months ago
          try this one. In expectation of a government doing a better job as a group than I can as an individual in defense of myself and my family against foreign and domestic criminals which include military attacks I agree to give up on a limited basis 'some' of my natural rights like buffalo in a herd or wolves in a pack to ensure the success of those two basic functions. The understanding is if they fail then I withdraw my consent and natural rights. If possible I fire them and hire a new government but I don't keep paying the same losers and failures.

          We have a single body congress and it is another example of a failed concept. Doesn't pass the second law of objectivism test. 'Does it pass the test and is it useful?'

          No and No so why am I still enabling these clowns? Or rather why is anyone enabling them. I'm not.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by sfdi1947 7 years, 9 months ago
          I would be inclined to agree with Jefferson, following strict Constitutional form. The wild expansion of Federalism did not begin until the Jackson Presidency, but has not stopped since. The only thing that makes any sense from the past 175 years was the establishment of a separate Federal Defense Establishment, though I would insure that it was much smaller but more capable with much stronger oversight.
          Virtually everything else that has occurred should have been either states business or an entrepreneurial capitalistic function.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 9 months ago
    Yes. The man in Car No. 1 has the least offensive idea, but the one that lets the leftist step toward all the others in turn.

    As you move down the length of the train, the ideologies get worse. Until you reach the man in Car no. 16.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 9 months ago
      can you tell us why?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 9 months ago
        Why, what? Why do I get it into my head that she did it this way, or why did she do it?

        Why do I get it into my head? Because she said so in a later interview.

        Why did she do it? I can only speculate. I suggest she did this to show the progression of bad ideas. It starts with something that might even seem noble. But it gets worse. Every bad idea leads or practice leads to the next.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 9 months ago
          yes, her quote above is explaining it. The question is why the progression is the way it is. who is the least culpable and why? who is somewhat culpable and why?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 9 months ago
            Look at the first and last. The progression begins with the idea that individual ability and achievement do not matter, and that masses, not individuals, count. The progression ends with seizing everything from those showing any ability. One leads to the other, through the intermediate steps.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 7 years, 9 months ago
              yes. I wasn't sure everyone following this post understood that. Even Mr. Epstein asked the question, "why in this order"? say why is the politician not more culpable than the humanitarian for instance? thanks for the clarification.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 9 months ago
    The words of most politicians are like peanut butter and jelly spread over moldy bread. Most people hear the words and they sound good, so they never look at the true meanings behind the sweetness.
    In the case of Boxer, she is from a district that is a bastion of irrational thought that turns itself into irrational action. She most likely will never run for anything ouside of that district. She is like the mummy movies. If you take away the wrappings it would reveal the horror underneath.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 7 years, 9 months ago
    From what I could glean from the piece, everyone on the train was guilty. From the mother who was willingly blind to injustice because it promoted her interests, even though she didn't actively institute the looting, through those who actively promoted and instituted the looting, the level of culpability varied, but the underlying theme was the same throughout.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 9 months ago
    I would be happy to sink the boat quickly that contained these political and educational people who came out with this drivel. We can start with Obama and Hillary and Harry Reid, and the lady politicians in California- starting with Nancy Pelosi.

    Only the crew would survive. All the politicians on board would not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brkssb 7 years, 9 months ago
    "The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge." I think that Senator Boxer would have been the model for one or more politicians omitted from the hierarchy. More to the point, voters elect politicians who know nothing, control giant industries through coercion, and have no knowledge - only feelings - about the bills they vote upon. -- I agree with others that the hierarchy goes from bad to worst, and I think Miss Rand saw them as the "enablers" of Kip Chalmers, the politician.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 9 months ago
    Thanks khalling for the video reinforcing my view of trash that "serves".
    The humanitarian is the guiltiest the top of the "hierarchical order" because he takes ZERO responsibility for his thoughts he embodies the myopic altruism that destroys the individual. He is the antireasonist. He in fact causes Atlas to shrug.
    Others on the train listed before him are examples of the result of that altruism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 9 months ago
    The only innocents were the victims who did not sanction the evil either implicitly or explicitly. Most people today sanction evil social ideas implicitly by just getting along with their lives without rocking the boat. They are more guilty than those who explicitly sanction evil because their implicit sanction is part of the cause of those who explicitly sanction evil. In Atlas Shrugged the most guilty were those like Readen and Dagny continued to sanction some of the beliefs that caused the destruction of the USA by continuing to produce without being paid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 9 months ago
      I disagree. The explicit are more guilty. The implicit sanction, if you know it's wrong, is certainly guilty. Hank and Dagny knew there was evil happening, but they genuinely thought they were fighting it the best way they knew how at the time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 9 months ago
        So which are people who vote Republican or Democrat? Guilty by sanction and collusion with statist looters, or fighting the least rational way they can in spite of the history of betrayal and looting?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 9 months ago
          some are explicitly guilty, some implicitly, others blind to their own contradictions. I don't think there is one clearcut , objective answer to the voting. I do think being registered to one of the two main parties is a contradiction.[edit: I should say, voting party line-not "registered"]
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 9 months ago
    From my perspective and opinion, I do see the Hierarchical order of guilt.

    Let's look at the situation. You had a mob of people, not in the sense of Rodney King mob, but a train car full of like minded looters and individuals who celebrate the looters, and political pull.

    Only one person possessed the political pull to motivate the actions of the moron, Dagny's brother into doing what he knew better than to do.

    Here comes the Hierarchy from my view.

    A politician with pull playing on James Taggart's personal fear, and desire to stay in the good graces of the politicians, in this case, Kip Chalmers, who DEMANDED James get him moving.

    Kip may not have exercised his political pull had the "mob" not encourage and stroked his self-important Ego, however, to prove his "pull" and importance coerced the disaster.

    The Train was full of looters all sharing the idea that the successful MUST be forced to share the product of their labor in one way or another, so, in my opinion, the Hierarchical order is as follows:

    The Mob, Kip then James who has no spine to stand up to anyone. James naturally subjugated his own personal authority and feeling of accountability by pawning off all decisions to an inexperienced subordinate.
    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 $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 9 months ago
      they also followed the Plato Kant Hegel Marx, Lenin, present day Democrat, Hillary, Sanders and Soros Secular Progressive line that a select group of people were exempt and worthy of more unearned product for being the thinkers and leaders.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 9 months ago
        Ironically if they really were, "thinkers" they would have realized they were very wrong.

        They were rulers, not leaders too. Leaders have people that follow who are generally not unhappy.. At leas in my opinion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo