The Truth behind Atlas Shrugged

[Essence]

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

[OldTrees]

The opening post is incomplete. It only contains a link to a comic drawn by someone that obviously did not even understand Objectivism. I expect better of Essence and assume that he was interrupted partway through his post.

This is the wiki pages on the books (Atlas Shrugged is a 2nd attempt by Ayn Rand because she was too subtle with her first book. The second attempt has been criticized as too blunt)
Objectivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
The Fountainhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

"The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath her Atlas Shrugged character John Galt adhered to:
'I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.' "

[Belthus]

In his end-of-the-book rant, does John Galt explain how the manual labor will get done in his utopia?

[OldTrees]

In his end-of-the-book rant, does John Galt explain how the manual labor will get done in his utopia?

It may not be overtly stated but the assumption is that they will do it. (second hand account.)

[Belthus]

In his end-of-the-book rant, does John Galt explain how the manual labor will get done in his utopia?

It may not be overtly stated but the assumption is that they will do it. (second hand account.)

That was the point of the cartoon, so how is it based on a misunderstanding?

[OldTrees]

In his end-of-the-book rant, does John Galt explain how the manual labor will get done in his utopia?

It may not be overtly stated but the assumption is that they will do it. (second hand account.)

That was the point of the cartoon, so how is it based on a misunderstanding?

The author of the comic was implying that Ayn Rand did not understand that manual labor would be needed when that was not her position. The strawmam attack was what prompted my response.
Similarly Ayn Rand would object to anyone being considered a labor producing robot because she believes that everyone ought to only pursue their ends and not forfeit those ends to support the ends of another. Hence she would never ignore the fact that laborers have ends by referring to them as robots.

[Essence]

The point is a parody.  The hidden and non-straw argument is this:  it's not that the people in Atlas Shrugged don't understand that manual labor will be needed -- it's that they don't understand that, if they are the only ones left and they have to perform their own manual labor, they are essentially denying their ability to be the technological and intellectual titans they once were.  After all, if your tilling earth, you're not developing new Rearden Metals or guiding the decisions of Taggart Transcontinental or Waytt Oil. 

In short, Atlas Shrugged fails to account for the fact that the elite separating themselves from society in the novel's proposed fashion also prevents them from utilizing the benefits of the society they left behind.  In shorter, being an elite intellectual powerhouse means nothing without the efforts of all of the people below you.  In even shorter, society is interdependent, and Atlas Shrugged goes a long way to pretend otherwise.  In shortest, the rich need the poor. 

Rand's philosophical notion (that state intervention in the private sector is always wrong) only works when the rich adequately support the poor just as the poor support the rich.  When the rich act like dissed middle schoolers and try to leave and make their own club, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

[OldTrees]

"In their efforts, these people "of the mind" hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where people are slaves to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society."

I see no reason to assume that they would not have been okay creating less sophisticated goods as their society grows. There objection was the lack of freedom and the destruction of the incentive to create. The 'heroes' in the story were willing to sacrifice their specific pursuits to be able to pursue creativity in a free manner. (again this is second hand from reading the wiki and talking to people who have read the book. The literary criticism turned me away from reading it. http://www.angryflower.com/intbon.html)

The rich and poor both voluntarily cooperate to make a society. When the voluntary aspect is tampered with or damaged in either direction (something that is often overlooked by all sides) then the society suffers.

I would add to my last point that one of my criticism of Ayn Rand is her emphasis of intellectual capital and deemphasis of physical labor as seen coincidentally in the last quote of the angryflower link I provided.

[Belthus]

Ayn Rand's vision was a romantic fantasy. Anyone who really tried it would be no better off than hippie communes. At least the hippies really do it (http://www.twinoaks.org/) and gain practical experience, as opposed to the Randians and their endless empty talk.

[OldTrees]

Ayn Rand's vision was a romantic fantasy. Anyone who really tried it would be no better off than hippie communes. At least the hippies really do it (http://www.twinoaks.org/) and gain practical experience, as opposed to the Randians and their endless empty talk.

It is a little difficult to find unoccupied territory so I am more sympathetic to their concerns.