Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    To me, Galt's response to the offer has to be 'No'.

    In power, Galt could repeal 10-289 but the gang would balk at measures that would chop their incomes. In the public view, Galt would have responsibility, but he would not have real authority.
    Things take time to recover. Putting in bad people and getting bad results is fast. Replacing bad people and after that waiting for recovery is slower. So let Thompson get the blame for his errors.

    Second question- Why was the offer made?
    Thompson did not offer to stand down, and take the wrecking team with him.
    He thought either- Galt could turn thing around and that he, Thompson, will claim all the praise.
    Or, he does not think that but putting Galt in control (nominal) buys time to make more excuses (blame the Russians or the usual suspects).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    First, Mr. Thompson did not mean that offer in anything approaching sincerity. He would never entrust John Galt with the power to repeal Directive 10-289. What Mr. Thompson had in mind was someone to take over the functions of the Unification Board and directly micromanage all factories, stores, and whatnot. It would be like Nikita Khrushchev saying to the staff of Gosplan, "You're all fired. From now on, Ivan Galt will tell us what to do."

    John Galt surely knew this. And as if he didn't know it, he tested Mr. Thompson. "Start by abolishing all income taxes." "Fire your government employees." Mr. Thompson balked at both. That's when Galt asked him whether he got the point or not.

    That's why Galt laughed in his face. But of course he wanted to see the collapse. Remember: he and his fellow Triumvirs were prepared to see this through for generations if need be. The collapse took far less time than any of the three could have predicted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Trump wanted to "repeal" Obamacare and then replace it with another government program. I wanted Trump and the democrats to just "repeal" Obamacare and return things to the way they were before (which I totally preferred)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      True... I think that the possibility that Galt would repeal all of their bad decisions could not possibly occur to someone like Thompson. My other thought was that Thompson knew Galt would refuse, and thus would have an excuse to torture him. But I don't think Thompson was smart enough to play a bluff.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Temlakos 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Mr. Thompson was a jellyfish. If you asked me to cast an AS movie with the Greatest Actors of All Time, I'd cast John Fiedler (Vinnie in The Odd Couple) as Mr. Thompson. I mean, look at how he blew it when Floyd Ferris suggested a euthanasia campaign? It was Ferris who wanted to apply torture--and summary execution on a grand scale. Ferris got off on that kind of thing. Mr. Thompson just thought he could cut a deal--until he wound up between two men (Galt v. Ferris), neither of whom was really interested in dealing with the other.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I think Thompson truly did not understand freedom. He was offering Galt absolute power in how to control the economy how he saw fit. He was not offering him absolute power to control it or leave it alone as he saw fit. Galt asked to leave it alone and Thompson said no. The offer had limits. It had to have a role for government leaders. In Thompson's mind that went without saying, so he was being honest in his over to turn it over to Galt supposedly with no restrictions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Thompson was a power hungry liberal. He totally understood that if the people were left alone, he couldnt have power over them. Same situation as today in the USA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    H***, yes, Galt (and the others) did want society to collapse so they could come in and rebuild. They made no bones about it. If Galt had taken Thompson's offer (I don't remember that he mentioned specifically #10-289; just "regulations"), those "repeals" would have lasted only a short time; the power-lusters would soon have repealed the "repeals"; and it wouldn't have changed the other statist measures that had been in place for a long time; and besides,its being done by an "Economic Dictator" wouldn't have been the right way to do it. He who lives by the executive order dies by the executive order.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    "We'd free the human race, that such a doom endures,
    Could you but creep into my skull,
    Or I creep into yours".
    "Listen.."
    By Ogden Nash
    Excerpt from One of his few serious poems.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Galt didnt want to bail out Thompson and be viewed as Thompsons bitch. He also knew that after he "fixed" the problems, he would be dumped and Thompson would take over again. Pretty easy to see.

    Thompson was desperate to retain power, kind of like the liberals are today. All things are on the table to get rid of Trump
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I would say that your evaluation was right on the money. Repealing 10-289 would only have delayed the inevitable...maybe. Also, since we all know that absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely, John would've had to refuse, regardless.

    Like all of the looters, Thompson's offer was simply so John Galt would do "something". I believe that Galt's corrective actions would have been allowed (with the exception of reducing government and taxes), but the world would still have ended up crashing, because the underlying cause was not being addressed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      He could have relaxed some of the stupidity of government regulation and prolonged things by allowing the Dagnys' and Reardens' of the world to put in extra work and make things function. BUT, his whole plan was to stop the motor of the world by convincing the movers and shakers to stop supporting the collectivist system.

      Something I can get behind right now. I am tired of working just to see my work and tax money being used to enslave me further
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JuliBMe 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    It's been several years since I read the book, but that is what I remember about it. Dagny kept fighting the collapse because she loved her railroad. All the while Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld believed a collapse was required.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      I think AS was not as much a novel as it was a documentary. So many of the things discussed in that book are happening since it was written. To look forward we should look at Venezuela to see whats in store for us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Not yet. We don't have a one-party state yet. We still have freedom of speech.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Well, look at the politically correct movement the leftists are promulgating. You dont get shot for speaking out (yet), but half the country (the liberals) slam you, take your job, and do whatever they can to demolish you if you speak against them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            That’s how the early fascists did it. The firing squads came later.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              True. Just being jewish was politically incorrect in the beginning. After awhile they burned the jewish shops and then took away the people.

              Now, we are seeing the violence against the deplorables starting up ` Harrassing conservatives in restaurants and ripping MAGA hats off students and even older people.

              I have to say that I am reluctant to put a MAGA sticker on my car for fear it will be trashed by some liberals.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Ayn Rand had something to say about that idea in the 60's. She listed some conditions under which it would be time to quit; her position was, not yet.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I wonder what she would say now. We can still speak our minds, but politically correctness has taken over when it comes to saying the N word one time, or not just automatically believing a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by having her behind patted.

            The violence is starting to come out all over too. I wonder if Trump will live through his presidency.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        The illiberals are also taking lots of notes from the book, 1984. Thought police, doublethink, destruction of words, rewriting history, etc.

        “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
        ― George Orwell, 1984
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          it all comes down to obtaining and maintaining power. The liberals are like any dictator and they use non physically violent methods unless they dont work, in which case they go quickly to violence.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    if the choice would be given to me...I would take it on the condition that 90% of govt would go away...and all taxes abolished...Thompson's goons would never honor that....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I think Galt realized that you can neither lead nor follow and remain true to the principles of Objectivism. The people had to find for themselves that 10-289 was akin to what the UN would put in place in this country, given the power. Much like an alcoholic needs to hit bottom to begin repair, so too did the structure of society. As we are seeing from today's socialists, denied the ability to implant Marxism, they continue to fight for something which is self-defeating.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I saw it as the only way to show them definitively, that they would fail epically by taking away the Value Creators as punishment for their stupidity.

    Once it all collapsed...the free market would rebuild the economy by it's virtues alone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Life under a "benevolent dictator" or monarch is still slavery of producers. Individual liberty, free markets, and very limited constitutional government frees the producers to create products that free people will voluntarily trade for.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      That's the Catch-22 of Libertarianism. You need to take governmental power in order to remove governmental powers. That irony in my opinion is one of the reasons we don't have more liberty or objectivist-minded politicians.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Funny. Thompson tried to kill him as I remember before he realized he needed him to maintain power.

      I would argue that there cannot be such a thing as a benevolent dictator. If he was benevolent , he woudlnt be an all powerful dictator.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
        If I may reference a non-Rand book, for every Frodo there are a thousand Boromirs. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Who were Frodo and Boromir?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
            Oh boy that's a long story. I don't want to take this discussion too off-topic. It's from the Lord of the Rings novels. If you read or watch "Fellowship of the Ring" which I highly recommend, you'll get it. Basically, you (Frodo) need to prevent your enemy gaining power by destroying that power, but can you be tempted not to take the enemy's power and try to use it for yourself (Boromir)? That would never happen because you can't control it, and in doing so you would become the enemy's servant. Another way of saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

            My point relating to Galt and Thompson was that if Galt accepted Thompson's offer in order to reverse 10-289 and its ilk, would he become the thing he was trying to destroy? And I relate it to real-life Libertarians because the irony is in order to take power away from government you have to first take power yourself. Can one be tempted with dictatorial power, and then be trusted to just remove the government and resign?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo