Question About the Tunnel Scene in Atlas Shrugged

Posted by khalling 9 years 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?

All Comments

  • Posted by sfdi1947 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 9 years 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    this probably should be its own post. I don't see private police as helpful because we are back to my thugs are meaner than yours. also, where's a patent office?!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    dept of defense, a few courts and a small executive
    to carry out the instructions of a single body congress. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 9 years ago
    Boxer is a mindless Progressive oligarch, she'll tow the party line because its all she can remember.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 9 years 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by brkssb 9 years 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    This is what happens when one tries to think with only the brain...it take a "Mind" to see the big picture; not to mention, to do so in order to get it right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 9 years 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo