Trio and Friends

The characters of Atlas Shrugged can afford to drop it all and let the world burn, because the ideal they stand for has no place for mercy, and because there are no morally ambiguous people - everyone is either completely good or completely evil.

The biblical example of this is the story of Noah’s Ark. The righteous people enter the safety of the ark and abandon the wicked world to its destruction, caring nothing for it. I love that this story takes place so early in the Bible, because it answers the big question that looms over the entire rest of the biblical story: why? Why would God try to save the world slowly, from the inside out, transforming people not by an alien force but by a gentle whisper in their souls, and by his own sacrifice? The answer is: he tried it the other way once, and things ended up back where they were beforehand. Noah and his family brought evil with them into the ark - the evil in their hearts - and it resurfaced after the flood subsided, and before long the world looked like it did before the flood. This isn’t a problem for Ayn Rand’s characters, because they aren’t bringing any evil with them into the Utopia of Greed.

And that is why Christianity has never gone wholesale for the "Benedict Option" - i.e. to withdraw from society and form little self-contained, self-sustaining communities that have no contact with the outside nor care for it. Christianity is more inclined to do what Dagny Taggart did for almost the entire book - fighting to preserve the good until the bitter end, even when all her efforts only seem like bailing water out of a sinking ship. There are many, many Christians who keep society going by being simple, honest, and hard working, even when their bosses are the ones who get most of the benefit. The nursing profession is possibly the best example of this.

The characters of Atlas Shrugged can afford to drop it all and let the world burn

Yes, but no. They are leaving it in the hands of those who have driven them from it. You are bitter at your slaves for leaving? They are simply refusing to work under such conditions. You are the masters after all. These are the workers deciding the conditions are no longer acceptable and that starting over from scratch is more acceptable. Mercy? Really! Begging your slaves for mercy when they try to leave?

The scary thought is if there is no longer any place to go to get away from those who would enslave you. America used to be that place. It still is in many regards but wow I am shocked at the forced lock-downs. It is unconstitutional but apparently nobody cares. To hell with principles where there is a pandemic. Foolish, that is what principles are FOR. When the storm is upon you and everyone’s running about with no idea what to do, you go back to the principles that you wrote down and proceed from there. But nevermind, we didn’t do that.

because the ideal they stand for has no place for mercy,

It has, but it has already been given. What is depicted is the mercy running out. It is the warning that money, and resources are not actually free. People somewhere are paying for all of that mercy. None of it is free. How selfish of them to stop paying! Not at all, how selfish of you for expecting it to continue. When it is you that is paying, then you can decide for yourself how much mercy you are willing to give. The person receiving will always accuse the person giving of being selfish.

because there are no morally ambiguous people - everyone is either completely good or completely evil

Maybe, you’ll have to provide more context.
Is having a morally ambiguous person helpful or good? My first take on that is that it’s just muddying the waters but I’ve not really thought about it much.

The biblical example of this is the story of Noah’s Ark. The righteous people enter the safety of the ark and abandon the wicked world to its destruction, caring nothing for it. I love that this story takes place so early in the Bible, because it answers the big question that looms over the entire rest of the biblical story: why? Why would God try to save the world slowly, from the inside out, transforming people not by an alien force but by a gentle whisper in their souls, and by his own sacrifice? The answer is: he tried it the other way once, and things ended up back where they were beforehand. Noah and his family brought evil with them into the ark - the evil in their hearts - and it resurfaced after the flood subsided, and before long the world looked like it did before the flood. This isn’t a problem for Ayn Rand’s characters, because they aren’t bringing any evil with them into the Utopia of Greed.

Yes, children are also not a problem for her characters. The “Utopia of Greed” will be very productive and then die out very quickly. It is also not greed. It is lack of slavery. Is it so greedy to want to keep the value of one’s own labor?

There are many, many Christians who keep society going by being simple, honest, and hard working, even when their bosses are the ones who get most of the benefit.

As though bosses cannot also be Christians? As though bosses make all the profit? Most bosses are simply paid an agreed upon salary or are even hourly workers just like the rest. What makes the bosses is that they are willing to take upon themselves the responsibility for ensuring that everything is going well, or as well as they can. They are the ones who know what to do when things go wrong. We need our bosses to decide what is valuable to do and what is a waste of time. And the risk is theirs, if it turns out they are wrong about what is important we still expect to get paid. It is the boss who has to square with the truth, that he made a poor judgment and failed. Why are you so quick to muzzle the ox while it is threshing? You want the risk to be on the boss and certainly the losses but when a reward comes, after careful planning and calculation and failure, then we will claim he is being selfish in keeping what he has earned when it is the reverse that is true. Have you not agreed happily on what you are willing to work for? If you are unhappy, why have you agreed to work? No, you are only unhappy when you see that someone else has profited. You are perfectly happy with the security the boss offers. You do not want to build your own business, to take that risk upon yourself. You are bitter about what you have agreed to work for because you have not taken seriously the prospect of starting your own venture. If you had you would realize it is not so simple, it is not all profit and riches. Most businesses fail. Is that what you want? Of course not. And you are not willing to take the risk. Better to leave that to the evil industrialists, and in so doing you lay the claim to the profits at their feet. If you are so bitter with them then shake your pitiful fearful self awake and start building your own. Then you are free to distribute your profit as you like. Then you will also have a much more measured and cautious view of such charity. You will then gaze ahead at the stormy waters in awe and trepidation. You will run into the truth in the future and be wrong, and then you will pay; the loss will roll in and the things you worked so hard for will vanish. The calm and order within your little ship will evaporate beneath the unforgiving truth. Give all the profit away? No, perhaps it is wise to plan for such a loss, to have a cushion so that when you are wrong, and you will be, that it does not take the ship down and with it all those people relying upon it. And then you will be called selfish.

But when you DO awaken your spirit to rise up and build your own ship and be your own master, then you will run into the government. There are rules about such things, you must do them like this, and you must have approval, it must be inspected, where is the documentation, and remember, there will be taxes. You cannot simply agree with someone that you want a task done and they agree to it for some sum of money. That would be too simple, to easy. We might have business crop up everywhere. You have to formally hire these people and provide them with vacation time, and benefits, and schedule raises, and get insurance. With all the layers of red tape it’s a miracle anyone slogs through it all and actually begins when such stiff opposition greets them before they’ve started. But to those who do, and succeed, and manage to provide something people want and turn a profit with all the rules and restrictions and taxes, those we call selfish.

Why are the Christians not the bosses? What does that have to do with Christians? Why is that thrown in there? I don’t understand.

The nursing profession is possibly the best example of this.

I doubt it. My guess is that the nursing profession is filled with women and women are the “downtrodden and the oppressed” and we will fight for them and spin the stories so they look as oppressed as possible and then we look good because we are fighting for women. We want women to be most oppressed because this is fashionable to say. It is just the latest wind of doctrine. There are probably much, much worse jobs filled with lots of men that are completely ignored and invisible to most of society. Unless, of course, they stop working. Read Why men earn more and The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell. If you read these and decide that maybe it is true, based on your previous statement, why should Atlas not shrug?

Ondrej wrote:Why are the Christians not the bosses? What does that have to do with Christians? Why is that thrown in there? I don’t understand.

It's a fair point. Christians can be bosses, and people who start businesses have their own stresses and insecurities. It reminds me of a page of a book I read a couple of years ago:

in 'Skin in the Game', Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote:When young people who "want to help mankind" come to me asking, "What should I do? I want to reduce poverty, save the world," and similar noble aspirations at the macro-level, my suggestion is:

1. Never engage in virtue signaling;
2. Never engage in rent-seeking;
3. You must start a business. Put yourself on the line, start a business.

... The entire idea is to move [people] away from the macro, away from abstract universal aims, away from the kind of social engineering that brings tail risks to society. Doing business will always help (because it brings about economic activity without large-scale risky changes in the economy); institutions (like the aid industry) may help, but they are equally likely to harm (I am being optimistic; I am certain that except for a few most do end up harming).

Courage (risk taking) is the highest virtue. We need entrepreneurs.

Yes, we need people to start businesses, which is risky and often does not pay off. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a boss. But if you are a successful boss in a big business, you have the opportunity (I don't call it a temptation, because we haven't yet settled whether this is bad) to pay your workers the same regardless of how much money you are making, and to fire them if you are not making enough money. In other words, you can make the employees shoulder the risk with you, but not the reward. What are they going to do about it? Quit and work somewhere else? They'd most likely be treated just the same there - so likely that it's not worth the risk.

Ondrej wrote: Mercy? Really! Begging your slaves for mercy when they try to leave?

I'm not sure it's quite accurate to call them slaves. They can choose what job they do, where they go, who they do business with. They are wealthy and can buy a large number of material goods - not to say that they haven't earned it. They have earned it. But that is the difference between a slave and a worker. A slave earns nothing no matter how hard he works. All his revenue go to the master. The worker may have to cede some of his revenue to a larger corporation that offers legal and military protection, security, and the like. But much of it is still his, to use as he pleases.

But that's not the main point at all. The main point is that not everyone is the master, not everyone is the bad guy imposing stupid laws and taxes on the workers. Millions of people who did no slave-driving will suffer, perhaps starve and die, because Atlas shrugged. The good guys let the world - not just their enemies - burn. All the people who did them no harm will also burn.

That's why it's so important that there's no moral ambiguity in Atlas Shrugged. If there were people who were mostly good, but a little bit foolish; mostly earned their pay, but had some inaccurate views about big business; mostly did hard work, but sometimes evaded responsibility - what would Atlas then do? We don't know, because there are no such people in Rand's universe. Everyone is either all good - in which case they are saved - or all evil - in which case they are damned. The wheat and the tares can be easily separated. The line between good and evil runs between big business and government, not through every human heart.

Ondrej wrote:The “Utopia of Greed” will be very productive and then die out very quickly. It is also not greed. It is lack of slavery. Is it so greedy to want to keep the value of one’s own labor?

As I said elsewhere, I'm using Rand's own words. She called it greed. Was she being ironic? I don't think so. She also promotes selfishness - at least, that is what I suggested in another thread.

The line between good and evil runs between big business and government, not through every human heart.

This is an enormous error. It was correct the first way.

In other words, you can make the employees shoulder the risk with you, but not the reward.

Try it! See if you can hire someone based off a percentage of your business earnings instead of a well-defined wage. I'll bet you won't get any takers. There's too much risk. It can fluctuate day to day. Workers want a guaranteed income as much as possible. What you complain about, getting fired when the business doesn't do well, that's after the business has already absorbed as much of the blow as they can. When they finally make a profit, and as we have noted many times this is unlikely for a business because they usually die, you are bitter they don't give it all to the employees. If they did something as foolish as that they would be firing everyone the next week. They need to save up more cash for the rainy days. Why? So they can pay everyone and the workers can get the guaranteed income. That's the umbrella they are offering, the shelter from the harsh reality that they have to square with. Their profits are stored insurance.

I'm not sure it's quite accurate to call them slaves.

Agreed. Because they left. That is how you know they are not slaves. They were being treated as such, by people who did not recognize the value they were adding. People who did not consider it possible that they would find it worth it to leave everything that had been built and start over. They thought the wires and buildings and rails would keep them working, without recognizing that they were the ones who built the wires and rails and buildings.

The main point is that not everyone is the master, not everyone is the bad guy imposing stupid laws and taxes on the workers. Millions of people who did no slave-driving will suffer, perhaps starve and die, because Atlas shrugged. The good guys let the world - not just their enemies - burn. All the people who did them no harm will also burn.

Yes, but the implication is that if they merely bowed down and became slaves, some lives would be saved. This is like holding a gun to my head and demanding that Frank do something. Then when you shoot me, you claim it is Frank's fault. Sorry, no. Atlas, let them have their way. The results were catastrophic. I imagine this is very much like hell. One perhaps wonders how a loving God can condemn someone to eternal damnation. I don't think it's Him doing it so much as us choosing it. Just like the politicians in Atlas Shrugged. They had every opportunity to reconsider their positions. They were not hoodwinked into their behavior. They had a purpose and pursued it successfully. They just expected that those who produced would have no choice but to keep producing. They were wrong.

I think Rand makes it much more epic than reality. We have run this sort of experiment many times. It probably is much less dramatic and much more compassionate. All the business owners finally succumb slowly, painfully and everything collapses amid condolences and "thoughts and prayers". We're headed that way right now.

As I said elsewhere, I'm using Rand's own words. She called it greed. Was she being ironic? I don't think so. She also promotes selfishness - at least, that is what I suggested in another thread.

I am not particularly hung up on Rand's wording. For example if she calls something "greed" or "selfishness" I want to know what she is really getting at. I think greed and selfishness are bad things but apparently she does not? That's strange! What is she getting at? Let me look at what she really means.

You judge for yourself what is greed and what is selfishness. Don't rely on Rand to tell you these things.

It is easy to say "greed", "selfishness" disregard. But just because you recoil at the words doesn't mean there isn't some truth there that's worth considering. Is she calling "making money" greed? Then I disagree. Making money is not greed, it is consideration, accommodation, and sacrifice. How about selfishness? Isn't it taking care of one's self? Surely one should do that. Even more so if one's self is wrapped up in a business that employs a bunch of people and provides a product/service that everyone wants. Absolutely, make sure you take a vacation when you think you need it, give yourself a raise if it's helpful, just keep producing. Take care of yourself, we need you. We are looking after you by giving you money. It is up to you to figure out how to keep giving us what we want.

I'm not sure it's quite accurate to call them slaves.

Ondrej wrote:Agreed. Because they left. That is how you know they are not slaves. They were being treated as such, by people who did not recognize the value they were adding. People who did not consider it possible that they would find it worth it to leave everything that had been built and start over. They thought the wires and buildings and rails would keep them working, without recognizing that they were the ones who built the wires and rails and buildings.

They're not slaves, nor were they ever slaves, because they always had the choice to leave whenever they wanted. And on the same basis, neither is any CEO or worker or capitalist around a slave in the real world. They have the same choice: they can leave. If they don't, it's because staying is better than the alternative.

They're not slaves, nor were they ever slaves

Yes, I agree. I think that is sort of the point of the book. The politicians forgot that even with no options, they still were not slaves and were free to leave everything.