The tension between Law and Grace

[Barney]

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is a clear, pure, consistent view of a world of law without grace or mercy.

“what motive is the opposite of charity? … Justice” (p. 814).

“When one acts on pity against justice, it is the good whom one punishes for the sake of the evil; when one saves the guilty from suffering, it is the innocent whom one forces to suffer. There is no escape from justice, nothing can be unearned and unpaid for in the universe, neither in matter nor in spirit—and if the guilty do not pay, then the innocent have to pay it.” (p. 522)

According to Tertullian, Marcion tore apart law and grace by teaching that the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament. Martin Luther also tore apart law and grace - explicitly and intentionally - by making no room for law in the gospel. Luther’s entire frame of mind was a series of “either/or” dichotomies: faith or works, Bible or tradition, salvation from God or from man, and law or grace. He saw no way those two things could be held together consistently. Because America is Protestant, it swings between the two extremes: sometimes embracing grace at the cost of law and sometimes doing the opposite. Ayn Rand is an example of embracing law at the cost of grace.

“Whenever you rebel against causality, your motive is the fraudulent desire, not to escape it, but worse: to reverse it. You want unearned love, as if love, the effect, could give you personal value, the cause—you want unearned admiration, as if admiration, the effect, could give you virtue, the cause—you want unearned wealth, as if wealth, the effect, could give you ability, the cause—you plead for mercy, mercy, not justice, as if an unearned forgiveness could wipe out the cause of your plea.” (p. 950)

Rand lives in an “either/or” universe in many ways. John Galt says to his enemies,

“You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty” (p. 924).

He might have a point if it was only his enemies who hold this either/or paradigm. But it is not. John Galt chooses the opposite path. He sacrifices mercy to justice, faith to reason, unity to independence, need to wealth, and self-denial to self-esteem. What he precisely does not do is seek a way of holding these two things in tension, each balanced and held in check by the other, kept together by a transcendent synthesis.

[Ondrej]

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is a clear, pure, consistent view of a world of law without grace or mercy. She says explicitly in one place: “what motive is the opposite of charity? … Justice” (p. 814).

No, the opposite of charity is slavery. Instead of one freely giving, one is taking by force. Justice is simply facing the truth; squaring off with reality, or with God. Justice is reaping the reward of your actions. And make no mistake, justice is GOOD! It seems we forget this somehow. God is just.

In the story there is ample grace and mercy from primarily one side. Dagny and Rearden are continuously lavishing grace, complying, struggling to hold up the world. This is grace and charity. They do not have to. The story is about what happens when we no longer recognize that they are doing that. What happens when Atlas cannot go on any longer? You seem to think it is all in people’s attitudes. Like, if they simply did not feel that way about things everything would change. No, that’s not how truth works. If you want a chair, a chair must be made. That’s the truth. Maybe you can’t make one and you say it isn’t fair. Fine, you can say that if you like but the truth does not care. You still have no chair. You can say to the chair maker, “give me a chair” and he may, or may not. But someone has to make it still. Someone is paying. This is the law. If the chair maker decided he will not give you a chair, it turns out, one does not magically appear for you. So, you go and get a gun and then force the chair maker to make you a chair. This is the government. And finally the chair maker pays and you get your chair. When at long last the chair maker can no longer bear the weight, when he is driven to leave all he has, then you accuse him of selfishness and greed, you say there is no room for charity only law. But who has been selfish? The chair maker did not request of you. You requested of him! And he paid! Those who are left behind and cannot square with the truth, who can do nothing because they have no desire to, the ones who have been receiving without giving, these are the selfish ones, these are the ones without grace.

According to Tertullian, Marcion tore apart law and grace by teaching that the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament. Martin Luther also tore apart law and grace - explicitly and intentionally - by making no room for law in the gospel. Luther’s entire frame of mind was a series of “either/or” dichotomies: faith or works, Bible or tradition, salvation from God or from man, and law or grace. He saw no way those two things could be held together consistently. Because America is Protestant, it swings between the two extremes: sometimes embracing grace at the cost of law and sometimes doing the opposite.

Not sure what most of this means really.

Ayn Rand is an example of embracing law at the cost of grace.
“Whenever you rebel against causality, your motive is the fraudulent desire, not to escape it, but worse: to reverse it. You want unearned love, as if love, the effect, could give you personal value, the cause—you want unearned admiration, as if admiration, the effect, could give you virtue, the cause—you want unearned wealth, as if wealth, the effect, could give you ability, the cause—you plead for mercy, mercy, not justice, as if an unearned forgiveness could wipe out the cause of your plea.” (p. 950)

I’m not sure what you mean by law and grace. How about truth. Rand is pointing out truth. You cannot escape truth. You can try to fly without the laws of aerodynamics and no grace will get you in the air. You need the truth. Someone has to square with the truth. Someone has to accept that this doesn’t work and that doesn’t work and pay attention and put in long hours examining the data and coming up with new theories and constructing new designs and ripping them up in dismay only to start again fresh in the morning. If you work against the truth, if you hide your face from it, if you put your desires of what you want to happen above what is actually happening you will fail. I know, I am an experimental scientist. When I perform experiments I do not pray to God that they will go as I plan. I pray that I will have my eyes open to see what is happening, not what I think should happen. Then I can learn the truth. THEN I will be powerful. I will have the truth. The truth is solid, it does not bend, it does not break. Not a thousand warriors or five internet trolls can break the truth (maybe a typo… maybe a typo can break the truth (no more jokes, Ondrej, this is serious!)).

Whenever you rebel against causality, your motive is the fraudulent desire, not to escape it, but worse: to reverse it.

This is refusing to accept reality. This is deception. The insistence that the world be different than it is. If you want to call this ‘law’ so be it but it is not law like ‘do not steal’ it is law like gravitation. One can, in fact, steal. One cannot break gravity.

I see nothing untrue with Rand’s statement. For example, if you are fat and you subscribe to the body positivity movement, it does not make you unfat. It also does not make you more attractive to possible mates. It makes you deceived (maybe, if you can manage to). You are already unsatisfied with yourself and instead of doing something to improve yourself honestly, in other words, in ways that you would truthfully believe you were improving, instead of that, you will listen to those that tell you you are just fine the way you are. This is simply avoiding squaring with the truth. You know they are lying, but you want to believe them. It would be nicer if it didn’t matter? It would be easier if nothing was required of you. Wouldn’t it be nicer to blame men for not finding you attractive instead of squaring with the truth? This is deception.

Those who are bitter at not receiving mercy have already received it and not recognized it. They are bitter that the mercy runs out. That they cannot just carry on foisting their burdens on those around them. They are angry at the world, at God, that they too must stand up under the load and not leave it to others.

Rand lives in an “either/or” universe in many ways. John Galt says to his enemies, “You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty” (p. 924). He might have a point if this was only his enemies who hold this either/or paradigm. But it is not. John Galt chooses the opposite path. He sacrifices mercy to justice, faith to reason, unity to independence, need to wealth, and self-denial to self-esteem. What he precisely does not do is seek a way of holding these two things in tension, each balanced and held in check by the other, kept together by a transcendent synthesis. 

What Galt does is reveal the truth. The truth everyone refused to hear. Atlas said “it is too much” and those in power said “shut your mouth, who are you to talk”. And he protested, “I am holding up the world, can I not have a say?” And they replied “No, we are in control here and what arrogance thinking you hold up the world!” When you no longer recognize that you are being rescued, when it is the fossil fuel companies and industry and *gasp* profit that is evil, when you spit in the face of the worker of miracles for performing the miracles and then have the gall to say of him when he leaves that he us just “letting us burn”… How do you not deserve to burn? You have asked for it, you have worked for it, you have pleaded for them to turn their backs. And when they do, it is an injustice. It is them that is greedy? But it is them squaring with truth, with God, to provide you with comfort. This is the grace they offer. This is what makes them profitable and what makes you despise them. But it relies upon you letting Atlas work, not meddling too much or stealing his profits.

[Barney]

In the story there is ample grace and mercy from primarily one side. Dagny and Rearden are continuously lavishing grace, complying, struggling to hold up the world. This is grace and charity. They do not have to.

I don't think that is true. At least, Rand goes to some lengths to show that this is not how she wants them to be understood.

I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish—but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life.

Rearden does not do anything out of mercy for others. Nor does Dagny. They act because they love their businesses, their products, and want to make them the best products possible. Dagny wants to fight to keep Taggart Transcontinental alive because she loves Taggart Transcontinental, not because she is having mercy on those who use it.

You seem to think it is all in people’s attitudes. Like, if they simply did not feel that way about things everything would change. No, that’s not how truth works. If you want a chair, a chair must be made. That’s the truth. Maybe you can’t make one and you say it isn’t fair. Fine, you can say that if you like but the truth does not care. You still have no chair. You can say to the chair maker, “give me a chair” and he may, or may not. But someone has to make it still. Someone is paying. This is the law.

I'm not interested in people's attitudes. I'm interested in what is true about how human beings ought to treat one another. I believe that we find out what is true by attending to what the Christian faith teaches. There is disagreement in the Christian faith about the value of law. Luther seemed to have a low view of it. But the Catholic faith has a high view of law. The Catholic faith agrees with you that it is a good thing that God is just, that justice is good, that justice is something we want. But the Catholic faith holds this truth in tension with another truth, the truth about forgiveness, second chances, redemption, mercy and grace. The relationship between the truth about justice and the truth about grace is complex, but let me try to put it this way.

You begin life with a free chair given you by your parents. You didn't earn it or deserve it. It was a free gift. Yet one day, in your ignorance and foolishess, you break the chair. Now you have none. If your parents operate purely by law without grace, they will say: "you want another chair? Make your own." If you reply, "But I was ignorant and foolish. I didn't realise that I would break it by my actions." They reply, "Tough. The facts of reality are that you broke it, and if you want another one, it has to be made by someone."

Parents who operate with law and grace in tension might say something like: "we'll pay for a new chair for you, but you must not do what you did the first time. You now know that this breaks the chair. You have learnt your lesson. Now treat this chair well."

Parents who operate with pure grace, without law, might simply keep buying chairs for you regardless of what you do.

"Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” (John 8:11)

Make sense?

[Ondrej]

Yes! Yes, precisely! First the law. First you learn that a chair breaks and then you try to build one yourself and you recognize the true value and COST. You can appreciate and honor your father and mother. You can look around in wonder, where did all of these chairs come from!? How much effort has gone into this one simple thing.
How evil it would be to spit in your fathers face and demand a new chair because you are incapable of creating one and with the same breath accuse him of selfishness if he insists first that you try to make one yourself or pay for it in another way. How else will you learn the price of things?
Then after being spit on and accused of greed, the father removes his hand. If that is your attitude, if you do not appreciate or even recognize what is provided for you, then do it all yourself. This is to teach the truth. This is the cold water splashed in the face. Sometimes the threat is insufficient and the removal of aid is required. This is shaking the dust off of your feet. This is Atlas one by one removing their hands from the engines of production. Right up to the collapse they are unrepentant and demanding. They believe they are owed what they cannot produce and they insist that those who do produce are selfish and immoral.
To request aid with the weight of the possibility of refusal puts you in a state of humility at your own ineptitude and great appreciation of for what others provide, through fair trade as well as any extra grace they see fit to bestow. To demand aid as though you are owed it is to elevate yourself (falsely) to a position of power over them and make them your slave.

"Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” (John 8:11)

This is not demanded of Jesus and we are stating with the recognition of transgression. In Atlas shrugged the "bad guys" do not recognize their behavior as transgressing anything and then demand that grace be extended to them.

[Ondrej]

You begin life with a free chair given you by your parents. You didn't earn it or deserve it. It was a free gift. Yet one day, in your ignorance and foolishess, you break the chair. Now you have none. If your parents operate purely by law without grace, they will say: "you want another chair? Make your own." If you reply, "But I was ignorant and foolish. I didn't realise that I would break it by my actions." They reply, "Tough. The facts of reality are that you broke it, and if you want another one, it has to be made by someone."

After posting the previous reply I realize this isn't quite right. Yes, you begin life with a free chair given by your parents, or that is, those who came before you and built the wealth of society. It is a free gift. You break the chair and say you want another. So you turn to your NEIGHBOR and request grace from him. He is not those that came before and gave you the free gift you initially got (not that you deserved that either). He is another who is alive now trying to make his own way in life. Now, it is right and good for him to help you if he sees value in it. But it is also in his purview to refuse and that is not wrong of him. There are any number of reasons he could refuse to help you without being selfish. He might be selfish, too. That is certainly possible. Nevertheless, you don't have a claim on his property no matter his moral state.

[Barney]

I think if the only point here is that you aren't morally obliged to help someone just because they have messed up their life, I probably agree.

Is that all Rand is saying? That neither should the government force you to help other people, nor should you feel morally obligated to do so? It seems quite a simple point and doesn't get us very far. It only means that people who demand help are mistaken. They should beg for it instead. Is that all she's saying? Besides, what does it matter whether they demand it or beg for it? Their choice of language doesn't alter the truth of their situation or of yours. It doesn't alter what is right and good to do. If it is good to help them, it remains good to do so whether they have demanded it or not. If it is not good, it remains not good whether they have demanded it or not. So is this just an exercise in correcting the vocabulary of poor people?

[Ondrej]

Is that all Rand is saying? That neither should the government force you to help other people, nor should you feel morally obligated to do so? It seems quite a simple point and doesn't get us very far.

I think she says more but let's review the implications with the first premise. If it is wrong to take one person's resources to give to another, even if it is motivated by compassion, we have just overthrown communist/socialist Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Portugal, Congo, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Uruguay, Vietnam, and Zambia. A bunch of places you aren't thinking of moving to. This is point by itself gets us halfway to a first world country.

What she also says is "take responsibility". Her characters at every turn square with reality, do not make excuses, and do what needs to be done to ensure everything runs smoothly. If the first step is do not take (or demand) what is not yours, the next step is, now take responsibility for yourself, first, and then bigger and bigger problems as you can handle them. Her characters grow from childhood with dedication, patience, humility, and grit to become what they are. They are not handed it (with the exception of Frisco, sort of). They studied and practiced and became good at their craft (even Frisco has to prove he is worthy to be handed the business).

These characters are contrasted by the "moochers". Who are the moochers? They are not the poor farmers in the fields scraping by and going to starve next year. Rand actually, if memory serves, has quite a bit of pity for those poor sops. The moochers are those in power in government and well connected upper class members that "make" their money not by trading something that someone else wants from them, which is what providing value is, they make their money by taking from other people. All for noble causes, for sure. But that is Rand's point as well, they can SAY it is a noble cause but how do we know, they are not paying any personal price for it. The farmers are still starving in their fields. The choices made by the moochers is all selfish and pay no mind to the realities on the ground. They operate not in truth but in fantasy.

The third point is that those who are disconnected from the harsh realities of what happens in the real world when one tries to run, let's say, a railroad; they only see that the railroad runs, it must make a big profit, we depend on it, they ought to be forced to run like we want. No, not at all. It will not run that way, with those who do not appreciate what really goes on at the helm. Dagny breaks herself in half trying to run it like that. It can't be done. She "lets them burn," which is to say, she stops fixing all the problems they are producing. She doesn't actively sabotage anything. She just steps out of the way when she concedes that she can not save it. Is she being selfish, sure, like a doctor that stops operating after you shoot her several times.

[Barney]

If it is wrong to take one person's resources to give to another, even if it is motivated by compassion

I didn't say that it was wrong to take one person's resources and give them to another. I said that I probably agree that you are not obligated to do so. At least, if you are not a Christian. If you are a Christian then we have to open up another discussion, and examine the New Testament carefully.

When the government gets involved things are more complicated, because as I suggest here, the government is not a fully separate entity from the individual citizen. The government is the result of the citizens jointly agreeing on who will decide how the country is run. I say "jointly agreeing" without meaning that it has to be unanimous. It would be too much to expect for a whole country to vote unanimously. So there will always be some people who disagree with some of the government choices, but that doesn't mean they have not participated in the choice. They could have run for government themselves. They could have studied the arguments of the candidates more closely. They could have debated with other voters to spread awareness of key issues. And finally, if all else fails, they could have left the country. Their staying is an implicit agreement that this government is, to quote Ondrej's phrase, "better than the alternative."

Therefore, I'm not sure it's accurate to go from "you are not morally obligated to help someone in need," to "the government is morally obligated not to help anyone in need." There are several important steps in-between.

, we have just overthrown communist/socialist Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Portugal, Congo, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Uruguay, Vietnam, and Zambia. A bunch of places you aren't thinking of moving to. This is point by itself gets us halfway to a first world country.

What about Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Spain, the UK, Denmark, and Singapore? These are generally considered first world countries, and all of them devote quite a lot of resources to helping the homeless, the unemployed, asylum seekers, refugees, orphans, and single mothers, not to mention International Aid. And they are places I would be happy to live (except Singapore - the weather there is too hot for me).

What she also says is "take responsibility". Her characters at every turn square with reality, do not make excuses, and do what needs to be done to ensure everything runs smoothly. If the first step is do not take (or demand) what is not yours, the next step is, now take responsibility for yourself, first, and then bigger and bigger problems as you can handle them. Her characters grow from childhood with dedication, patience, humility, and grit to become what they are. They are not handed it (with the exception of Frisco, sort of). They studied and practiced and became good at their craft (even Frisco has to prove he is worthy to be handed the business).

Taking responsibility is a wonderful virtue and a good character quality to have. And it's true that her protagonists all have that quality. But is it true that you have to be a capitalist in order to take responsibility? Could I not write a novel in which the protagonists are a bunch of socialists, or fascists, or theocrats, or anarchists, or almost any other political persuasion, and who take responsibility, square with reality, do not make excuses, study and practice and become good at their craft?

The third point is that those who are disconnected from the harsh realities of what happens in the real world when one tries to run, let's say, a railroad; they only see that the railroad runs, it must make a big profit, we depend on it, they ought to be forced to run like we want. No, not at all. It will not run that way, with those who do not appreciate what really goes on at the helm.

This I agree with, and it is not often enough thought of. I often hear people complain about the high salaries of, for example, the principal of a University, compared with the pittance you get when you teach for an hourly rate. And my own life situation gives me a strong motivation to complain along with them. But I don't think people realise what would happen if the principal had a lower salary, and the zero hour contract teachers had a higher one. The university would hire a principal who wasn't as good at the job - because he or she would be the only one willing to accept such a low salary, being unable to get the higher paid ones. The competition would increase fiercely for the teachers, and the person complaining would be less likely than ever to get one of those jobs. If, on the other hand, they just raised the base salaries and kept the principal's salary high, the university would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to other universities. It would be more likely to disappear, leaving behind only the universities who didn't pursue such equal rates.

Dagny breaks herself in half trying to run it like that. It can't be done. She "lets them burn," which is to say, she stops fixing all the problems they are producing. She doesn't actively sabotage anything. She just steps out of the way when she concedes that she can not save it. Is she being selfish, sure, like a doctor that stops operating after you shoot her several times.

This all works very well in the novel, because of the way Rand has set up the characters. I suggest that real life is more messy, and there are plenty of people who are partly responsible and partly moochers, partly hard-working and partly lazy, partly help solve problems and partly create new ones. Probably in the real world if Dagny resigned, someone else would step in to replace her who was not quite as good, but still pretty good, and the railroad would survive, albeit less efficiently. In the real world she would have a number of Eddie Willers characters, who help her run things even though they're not as smart as her. And in the real world Jim Taggart would realize that Dagny had made the right decision several times, and would be more willing to listen to her advice in the future. The real world is just more complicated.

But anyway, it's no good me simply saying "things are more complicated." I need to come up with examples to demonstrate the point. That is the job of another thread.

[Ondrej]

They could have debated with other voters to spread awareness of key issues. And finally, if all else fails, they could have left the country. Their staying is an implicit agreement that this government is, to quote Ondrej's phrase, "better than the alternative."

Yes, I think this is true. It may be better than existing alternatives. But agreeing that its better than alternatives does not mean it is right, and it doesn't mean you are agreeing with what you disagree with. You are compromising.

If I am in a room of three people, they each have $5 and I have $100, and we run an election and they vote to take my money does the number of people make it right? Have I really consented? I may "consent" knowing that in the next room over they aren't running elections they are just beating those with more than them. So this is the best bad option but it's still wrong.

"the government is morally obligated not to help anyone in need."

Well, let's be careful here. I do not object to the government helping people. I object to the government taking from people to help other people.

What about Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Spain, the UK, Denmark, and Singapore? These are generally considered first world countries, and all of them devote quite a lot of resources to helping the homeless

Interestingly, I just looked up a list of current socialist countries. My point was that this trivial idea you have little value for is seriously a big deal.

As to these other countries, I would say, there no countries that have no theft. Just because some theft goes on doesn't mean the country is immediately thrown to ruin. It is the degree to which it happens that makes the difference. The entire list of countries that are considered socialist are all struggling, because they allow a great deal of theft. If someone will just take what I produce why bother creating any more value than what I can immediately consume. This is the effect of rampant theft. And there is no recourse. What are you going to do, tell the authorities?

I do not know a great deal about these countries and what exactly the policies are but I think the larger the government social safety net the poorer the country and as a direct result the poorer the people. It is a downward spiral. The real challenge is not giving in to the temptation.

Taking responsibility is a wonderful virtue and a good character quality to have. And it's true that her protagonists all have that quality. But is it true that you have to be a capitalist in order to take responsibility?

No, of course you do not have to be a capitalist to take responsibility. You asked if all that Rand was saying was that need does not give claim to property. I was giving examples of other things Rand was also saying.

A feature of capitalism is that your risk and reward falls on you. This gives great incentive to take responsibility because there's nobody else doing it for you.

This I agree with, and it is not often enough thought of. I often hear people complain about the high salaries of, for example, the principal of a University, compared with the pittance you get when you teach for an hourly rate. And my own life situation gives me a strong motivation to complain along with them. But I don't think people realise what would happen if the principal had a lower salary, and the zero hour contract teachers had a higher one. The university would hire a principal who wasn't as good at the job - because he or she would be the only one willing to accept such a low salary, being unable to get the higher paid ones. The competition would increase fiercely for the teachers, and the person complaining would be less likely than ever to get one of those jobs. If, on the other hand, they just raised the base salaries and kept the principal's salary high, the university would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to other universities. It would be more likely to disappear, leaving behind only the universities who didn't pursue such equal rates.

I read something somewhere... People are often galled by the million dollar severance packages for CEOs being let go. This guy was pointing out they are under contract, they are paying millions of dollars to GET RID of him. He will do so much more damage it is worth it to pay him to leave even if he hasn't done anything "wrong" (i.e. they can't fire him). It gets in people's heads that they are paying him for a bad job. No, they are paying for their mistake of hiring him. They are paying for him to go away without a fuss. (not sure what that had to do with your comment but it made me think of it)

This all works very well in the novel, because of the way Rand has set up the characters. I suggest that real life is more messy, and there are plenty of people who are partly responsible and partly moochers, partly hard-working and partly lazy, partly help solve problems and partly create new ones. Probably in the real world if Dagny resigned, someone else would step in to replace her who was not quite as good, but still pretty good, and the railroad would survive, albeit less efficiently. In the real world she would have a number of Eddie Willers characters, who help her run things even though they're not as smart as her. And in the real world Jim Taggart would realize that Dagny had made the right decision several times, and would be more willing to listen to her advice in the future. The real world is just more complicated.

Yes, the real world is not so cut and dry. But I don't think Rand's points would be made clearer by providing more complex characters. I think it would have been much harder to decipher her ideas if Rearden were on the other hand getting government subsidies, and on the government Council of Materials board etc. The black and white of the novel make it much more clear what she objects to and what is praised. We do this all the time with hero myths. This is why we put up statues of people and tell the good things they did. Not that they never did a bad thing but we want to know what the good things were and remember them. Not for their sake but for our own.

[Barney]

there no countries that have no theft. Just because some theft goes on doesn't mean the country is immediately thrown to ruin. It is the degree to which it happens that makes the difference. The entire list of countries that are considered socialist are all struggling, because they allow a great deal of theft. If someone will just take what I produce why bother creating any more value than what I can immediately consume. This is the effect of rampant theft. And there is no recourse. What are you going to do, tell the authorities?

Fair enough. Nothing of what I've said or am saying is meant as an endorsement of socialism. But it does trouble me that the debate so often forces people to extremes: anything less than pure capitalism is a step in the direction of socialism, and that makes you a socialist! To which I answer: look at all the countries of Western Europe, and also Canada, Australia, New Zealand. They have never been socialist, yet they are far less capitalist than America.

But I take it that your point is: nothing less than pure libertarianism will do. Anything less is theft and is therefore morally objectionable as a matter of principle. Therefore even the thriving and wealthy countries like Germany or Sweden are behaving immorally whenever they take money from their citizens and give it to someone else, however little.

It therefore hangs on whether taxation really is the same as theft. And that is a topic for another thread.