John Galt or George Bailey

[Distracted1]

I happened to be perusing the JREF thread about Ayn Rand the other night while my television was on.
"Its' a Wonderful Life" came on, and it hit me that two literary charachters could'nt be more philosophically different.
Who is more necessary to the success of the species?
Galt? or Bailey?

[quixotecoyote]

Both are so unconnected to reality that it's impossible to say.

Galt is a ridiculous superman and Bailey is unbelievably essential. The discussion on Galt was covered in the other thread. The portrayal of Bailey assumed that, had he not existed, no one else in town would have taken the initiative to solve any of the problem that he faced. Not only that, it assumed the worst possible consequences for his non-existence.

Additionally, the Bailey universe is as unrealistic as the Galt universe. I grew up in small towns and I know that no one, no matter how great their achievements, is so well loved that the mere knowledge that they are in trouble will spur spontaneous donations to keep their business afloat. Now, with a slick media campaign behind him, people could have been influenced to donate as Extreme Home Makeover tends to do, but that wasn't the scenario.

The difference? Bailey exists in a fictional universe designed to stir fuzzy holiday feelings. Galt is an attempt to convince you he could be real.

[Abe_the_Man]

Who is John Galt?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This is an argument of the collective versus the individual.

I; from my study of history, see the individual as generally beneficial to society as a whole. History teaches us the the collective always destroys society.

[quixotecoyote]

Except that that societies ARE collectives, by definition.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Except that that societies ARE collectives, by definition.

No, societies are groupings of individuals. The manner in which that society functions can be a collective.

[quixotecoyote]

No, societies are groupings of individuals. The manner in which that society functions can be a collective.

Societies are more than geographical assignations of population. Societies are groups of individuals who identify as a group and work to promote that group's interest to a greater or lesser extent. It is impossible to construct a meaningful definition of society without the concept of common interests.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Societies are more than geographical assignations of population. Societies are groups of individuals who identify as a group and work to promote that group's interest to a greater or lesser extent. It is impossible to construct a meaningful definition of society without the concept of common interests.

Do you really think that the majority of individual people in any society go to work daily "to promote the group's interest"?

[quixotecoyote]

Do you really think that the majority of individual people in any society go to work daily "to promote the group's interest"?

Yes, although I doubt they'd phrase it as such. In America at least, the knee-jerk hatred of anything with a socialist, communist, or collectivist label has obscured the understanding of the reality, purpose and functioning of a society.

At a basic level, this is why work is valued over theft. The group of individuals who comprise society has decided that their common interests will be served better if people work to produce goods and services rather than fight and steal resources from each other. Every time someone goes to work rather than attempting a mugging or a burglary, they are promoting the common interests of the group.

You find more examples as the situations become more complex. The group of individuals who comprise society have decided it benefits them as a whole to have as many educated individuals in society as possible. For that reason, we support children's education regardless of the financial ability of their parents to provide that education. At least that's the goal currently. There's an increasing movement that says the group's benefit in supporting that education is outweighed by the costs. In my personal opinion, I think this is less an instance of reevaluating societal goals and more of an ideological opposition to the concept of society itself.

The idea that we as a country are members of a group and as a group should create policies and systems to promote our group as much as possible; that is the idea of a society. This isn't anti-capitalist; properly applied and regulated capitalism has been one of the best policies for promoting societal well being. The problem comes when people confuse means with ends. When capitalism becomes the goal, people have lost sight of the fact that it is an economic system meant to maximize the benefits to society and not a value system whose promotion is valuable in and of itself.

People losing touch with reality like this has a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. When people no longer see themselves as part of the group for decision making processes, when they no longer see themselves as included in the benefit analysis, when they no longer see government as a body invested with rights by the people and delegated to make decisions where it is impractical to include every individual member of society in deliberation; when these things happen, people cease to participate as members of society. When people cease to participate as members of society, it leads to the separations of identity listed above.

There are three possible reactions people can have to this separation:

1)Reject society. This is no longer possible. It used to be that when you felt separated from the rest of the group of individuals in your society, you could pack up your bags, recruit some followers, and find a patch of wilderness to set up a new society. This is no longer possible, for obvious reasons. The result is that you get anarchists and libertarians on message boards calling for separation from and destruction of society from residences that society has constructed, fed by food society has produced, communicating over a medium that society facilitates. It becomes an exercise in absurdity.

2)Assert themselves in society. Form political parties and other organizations starting at grass roots levels that change what it means to be a member of society. Instead of calling for society to be split and destroyed, call for it to change to something more acceptable. This is more realistic, but once enough people have chosen strategy #1, this becomes impossible as well. Or it could be that the ideas for change are actually fringe, the mass of society is not feeling disassociated from the group and it is impossible for that reason. The case where change in society is possible is when enough people disagree with the current policies the group has enacted, but still feel enough connection to the group to engage in a process of change.

3) Destroy society. This is the Troofers, militias, White Supremacist, tax protestor, style option. Man the barricades and fight the power! Don't only reject the group of individuals that you feel is going the wrong direction; kill them and scatter their influence. Create a new society out of your fellow disaffected on the burning rubble you leave behind. I don't think I need to spell out the problems with this.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thank you for your time and your thoughts presented here.

Yes, although I doubt they'd phrase it as such. In America at least, the knee-jerk hatred of anything with a socialist, communist, or collectivist label has obscured the understanding of the reality, purpose and functioning of a society.

I strive to be a student of history, and history teaches us that society generally moves toward the collective and that it consistently fails.

At a basic level, this is why work is valued over theft. The group of individuals who comprise society has decided that their common interests will be served better if people work to produce goods and services rather than fight and steal resources from each other. Every time someone goes to work rather than attempting a mugging or a burglary, they are promoting the common interests of the group.

I disagree. Work is valued by the individual because they are receiving the proceeds of their labor. The value of the particular proceed is based on the individual. This is an inherently human attribute. Think of art. Some artists value the monetary gain from their work, others value the painting itself exclusively. Few artists value the gain for society of their work.

What you write of concerning the individual producing for the common interest is but a by-product of the individuals self interest.

You find more examples as the situations become more complex. The group of individuals who comprise society have decided it benefits them as a whole to have as many educated individuals in society as possible. For that reason, we support children's education regardless of the financial ability of their parents to provide that education. At least that's the goal currently. There's an increasing movement that says the group's benefit in supporting that education is outweighed by the costs. In my personal opinion, I think this is less an instance of reevaluating societal goals and more of an ideological opposition to the concept of society itself.

Please, with the goals of societal education promoting the general good. The public education system was created and is currently used to create non-thinking button pushers. This is good for the collectivist and bad for the individual thinker. The current system is in reality designed to stifle the thinker thus preventing competition with the current elite.

The idea that we as a country are members of a group and as a group should create policies and systems to promote our group as much as possible; that is the idea of a society. This isn't anti-capitalist; properly applied and regulated capitalism has been one of the best policies for promoting societal well being. The problem comes when people confuse means with ends. When capitalism becomes the goal, people have lost sight of the fact that it is an economic system meant to maximize the benefits to society and not a value system whose promotion is valuable in and of itself.

The benefit for society can only be stolen for so long from the producers before they stop producing.

People losing touch with reality like this has a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. When people no longer see themselves as part of the group for decision making processes, when they no longer see themselves as included in the benefit analysis, when they no longer see government as a body invested with rights by the people and delegated to make decisions where it is impractical to include every individual member of society in deliberation; when these things happen, people cease to participate as members of society. When people cease to participate as members of society, it leads to the separations of identity listed above.

All grouping are temporary and arbitrary. The government should only be a tool used to secure the individuals inherent rights. Once the government begins to use its power to take from one individual and give to another the government becomes a tool of tyranny.

[Senex]

George Bailey never made me read a sixty-five page monologue.

[Distracted1]

[QUOTE=quixotecoyote;3255228]Both are so unconnected to reality that it's impossible to say.

Galt is a ridiculous superman and Bailey is unbelievably essential. The discussion on Galt was covered in the other thread. The portrayal of Bailey assumed that, had he not existed, no one else in town would have taken the initiative to solve any of the problem that he faced. Not only that, it assumed the worst possible consequences for his non-existence.
QUOTE]

That describes the story-line of the film, not the character George Bailey.
Bailey had no way of being certain that anyone else in the town would have taken the initiative to solve the problems he faced. He decided that it was his responsibility to address the problems-because he was able to address them.

[QUOTE] Do you really think that the majority of individual people in any society go to work daily "to promote the group's interest"? [QUOTE]
Is it all or nothing?
Is it not possible to go to work daily to promote my own interests, give thought to what is in the interest of the collective and occasionally subsume my own interests to those of the collective?
Don't we all do that when we don't turn those we percieve as being less capable than ourselves into prey?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is it all or nothing?
Is it not possible to go to work daily to promote my own interests, give thought to what is in the interest of the collective and occasionally subsume my own interests to those of the collective?
Don't we all do that when we don't turn those we percieve as being less capable than ourselves into prey?

The people that you deal with are not prey. The goal of the individual should be; and for most people is, to trade to the mutual benefit of both parties. Those that act as predator will not last long without the benefit of government protection.

When the collective takes from an individual on the terms of the collective this is theft. Shall the man down the street take your food only because he has none and it not be called theft. Why would you allow this authority to the collective? The words you may use to describe the action will not change the facts of the action.





ETA: Put this symbol / before the last "quote" and it will be correct. If I am not explaining this well you can click the quote button on anyones post and you will see an example.

[Distracted1]

Is'nt it the goal of the individual to trade for the best interest of the individual? Accepting that it "should" be for mutual interest seems to be accepting that the collective has value.
Does'nt accepting from the collective obligate me to give something back when needed?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is'nt it the goal of the individual to trade for the best interest of the individual? Accepting that it "should" be for mutual interest seems to be accepting that the collective has value.
Does'nt accepting from the collective obligate me to give something back when needed?

Your best interest in the long term is always served by making an equitable trade with another individual. Thinking from a selfish point of view this will further your ability to make trades with others and that particular individual in the future.

Who decides what is needed by who from who? Here is where we enter the beginning of the game of inequitable trades which cause theft and create resentment.

[rats]

Who is John Galt?

:D

[Distracted1]

Your best interest in the long term is always served by making an equitable trade with another individual. Thinking from a selfish point of view this will further your ability to make trades with others and that particular individual in the future.

Who decides what is needed by who from who? Here is where we enter the beginning of the game of inequitable trades which cause theft and create resentment./

Who decides which trades are "equitable"?

It seems to me that "whatever the market will bear" encourages inequitable trades. Also, that human history (such as my understanding of it allows) is one of inequitable trades. (Manhattan Island for a handful of beads ,pay for this indulgence and be forgiven your sin, "Try this crack" et..al.)

Furthermore, the globe is a closed system. I am party to trades that I did not agree to when my neighbor dumps GHB onto the ground and makes the water I depend on undrinkable, or decides to sell firearms to criminals. Doese'nt a reasonable person agree that the collective has the obligation to act in these situations?

I also am not convinced that possession automatically confers ownership, How is it that I have food when the man down the street does not? If one can arbitrarily decide that is it not right for him to excersize his physical superiority and take my food, can't one arbitrarily decide that it is not right for me to withhold it from him?

[RobRoy]

George Bailey never made me read a sixty-five page monologue.

No, but he does make you sit through 130 minutes of light and sweetness which is almost as bad.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think Galt and Bailey are so opposite. Would Galt have let his brother drown? Did Bailey demand to be supported by the efforts of others? Both are unrealistic, but they are not so different in principle. Galt opposed 'leeches' using force to live off of the productive, Bailey on his own initiative and with his own resources decided to help out people during tough times. One is hard-edged and uncompromising and the other is fuzzy and helpful, but opposites of Galt can easily be found in the novel, and Bailey doesn't resemble them much.

[Soapy Sam]

From the Wikipedia entry on Ayn Rand's "Atlas shrugged".
The enigmatic John Galt is the male hero of Atlas Shrugged, and typifies the Randian hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randian_hero). By trade, he is an engineer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer), and has developed a revolutionary new motor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor) powered by ambient static electricity that has the potential to change the world. However, in disgust at the collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) forced upon him at his workplace at the Twentieth Century Motor Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Motor_Company), he goes on strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action), depriving the world of his invaluable invention.

A RANDIAN HERO????? Who designs static electric motors????&%*%%$! That's one odd book.

By comparison, George Bailey seems like a pretty regular guy.

[Senex]

No, but he does make you sit through 130 minutes of light and sweetness which is almost as bad.

I like It's A Wonderful Life. It's a metaphor for how someone who doesn't look especially important can make positive differences in many people's lives. We all know we all die. Death is the great equalizer, but everyone leaves a legacy. It's nice to think during a winter holiday break that just being kind and doing what you feel is right can make a difference to other people. I buy into that around the holidays.

I can see how you can compare and contrast Galt and Bailey. Bailey values kindness and gentleness where Galt cares less about that but only values results. Galt (and Reardon) and Bailey all have the ego to keep their name on their businesses. Keep in mind, if it wasn't "Bailey Savings and Loan" George would have gone on his honeymoon.

[RobRoy]

A RANDIAN HERO????? Who designs static electric motors????&%*%%$! That's one odd book.

So I take it you haven't read the book. I don't know why everyone gets so hung up on the fictional motor. It's more a symbolic potential than an actual potential. But of all the reasons to think of John Galt or Atlas Shrugged as "one odd book" this seems one of the weakest.

By comparison, George Bailey seems like a pretty regular guy.

George Bailey's psychology is pretty messed up in the extreme. Sure, there are reasons why he can't leave town immediately, but we're told he's never, ever been able to take a trip to anywhere. He's unable to "make a dime" from all the houses his company has built and all the loans they've provided, while at the same time the rest of the town appears to prosper. Then there's the contrived emergency that sends George, mere minutes early, over the edge to the contemplation of suicide versus jail. The deconstruction is that after all his efforts, all his being a stand-up guy and savings people from themselves, his choice is to off himself. For such a smart guy, he should know that insurance doesn't pay for a suicide, and yet that's the crux on which the movie is based, and by which the angel Clarence is sent to save him.

Both characters have extreme issues and when viewed by the light of reality waver considerably.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

/Who decides which trades are "equitable"?

The individuals involved in the trade.

It seems to me that "whatever the market will bear" encourages inequitable trades. Also, that human history (such as my understanding of it allows) is one of inequitable trades. (Manhattan Island for a handful of beads ,pay for this indulgence and be forgiven your sin, "Try this crack" et..al.)

Are all men to be punished by the collective because of the sins of some men?

Furthermore, the globe is a closed system. I am party to trades that I did not agree to when my neighbor dumps GHB onto the ground and makes the water I depend on undrinkable, or decides to sell firearms to criminals. Doese'nt a reasonable person agree that the collective has the obligation to act in these situations?

The neighbor in your circumstance has injured your property. The proper role of government is to provide remedy here.

The government in America was designed to secure the rights of the individual, the collective has no rights.


I also am not convinced that possession automatically confers ownership, How is it that I have food when the man down the street does not? If one can arbitrarily decide that is it not right for him to excersize his physical superiority and take my food, can't one arbitrarily decide that it is not right for me to withhold it from him?


You traded for food, the man down the street did not. What right does he have to your food? If he were to take your food by force than he would be violating your right to the food.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't think Galt and Bailey are so opposite. Would Galt have let his brother drown? Did Bailey demand to be supported by the efforts of others? Both are unrealistic, but they are not so different in principle. Galt opposed 'leeches' using force to live off of the productive, Bailey on his own initiative and with his own resources decided to help out people during tough times. One is hard-edged and uncompromising and the other is fuzzy and helpful, but opposites of Galt can easily be found in the novel, and Bailey doesn't resemble them much.

My initial reaction to the OP was that they were opposites. I now think that you are correct. Thanks.

The veneer is different, not the substance.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For such a smart guy, he should know that insurance doesn't pay for a suicide...

Not true.

[Foolmewunz]

Have I mentioned lately how much I love this place?

A deconstructivist pop-psycology analysis of the merits of two fictional characters! Can we do Blanche DuBois and Wonder Woman next?

Reminds me of my friends in Montreal, who between the Super Bowl and the baseball season were so hungry for a bet that they put a hundred bucks on the outcome of a fictional basketball game.

It was the first-season finale of The White Shadow. Carver made the city title game, and the bartender at Darwin's and my friend Simon did an in-depth analysis...
Bartender (serious sports fan): Hey! They've got a potential H.S. All-American in the center, a strong high post, and a decent point guard.
Simon (theater student): Naaah. It's the first season, and they can't win the title - what'll they do next year?

We actually showed up for the game and had side bets going. Those of us who bet on the Hollywood reality (that they'd lose for reasons of keeping the series interesting) started crying foul in the first five minutes when one of the starting players gets killed as a bystander in a robbery. "All bets are off! No one said they were going to have an inspirational death in the opening act!"

[RobRoy]

Not true.

Which part are you denying? That George Bailey should have known that insurance companies don't pay on suicides, or that insurance companies don't pay on suicides?

If the former, then we only have George's general business sense and "success" (he managed to stay in business for years without making any personal profit), his understanding of money, investment, loans, building codes, contracts, etc. to go on. So yeah, I suppose he could have been completely in the dark about an insurance company not paying out for suicides.

If the latter, then apparently I'm misinformed on life insurance policies and suicide. I was under the impression that in any case of suicide for the sole purpose of the benefits paid, the insurance policy was null, or in some cases, the insurance company would return the premiums already paid. In the case of George Bailey, that would have been a mere $500, not enough to save the business.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which part are you denying? That George Bailey should have known that insurance companies don't pay on suicides, or that insurance companies don't pay on suicides?

I hope you did not take my comment as rude. Looking at it now it seems that way to me. Sorry.


Life insurance does pay for suicides.

Life insurance does not pay the murder.

[RobRoy]

I hope you did not take my comment as rude. Looking at it now it seems that way to me. Sorry.

Not at all . . . or rather, I generally give the benefit of the doubt, even on the short and curt/sweet responses.


Life insurance does pay for suicides.

As I said, my understanding was that insurance did not payout if the primary motive for the suicide was the payout. It has to be proved, of course, but current laws allow a year or two before the company is required to pay, and any company worth their term life has fraud investigators who do nothing but save the company from paying. In some cases, when payout was the motive, the company is only required to return any premiums that were already received.

For full disclosure, I only have limited knowledge of the insurance industry and will bow to anyone else who had a more intimate and familiar understanding. This is just what my talking to someone in the industry yeilded while watching Double Indemnity.

Life insurance does not pay the murder.

This I was also very much not aware of. Interesting, but not germane to the discussion. What's the rationale behind this?

[Chaos]

*snip*
As I said, my understanding was that insurance did not payout if the primary motive for the suicide was the payout. It has to be proved, of course, but current laws allow a year or two before the company is required to pay. In some cases, when payout was the motive, the company is only required to return any premiums that were already received.
*snip*

I´m not sure how things are where you live, but I´ve worked in life assurance in Germany for a while. Over here, the insurance company does pay if a specified time has passed since the insurance was taken out - I think it is three years. After this period, I am pretty sure insurance companies have to pay.

On the other hand, accident insurance does not have to pay in case of suicide.


ETA:
In case of murder, both life and accident insurance would have to pay, although IIRC the guilty party (if caught) cannot become recipient of the money.

[RobRoy]

I´m not sure how things are where you live, but I´ve worked in life assurance in Germany for a while. Over here, the insurance company does pay if a specified time has passed since the insurance was taken out - I think it is three years. After this period, I am pretty sure insurance companies have to pay.

I understand that they pay in the event of a suicide, if the policy has reached a certain maturity level (two years in most US states). My understanding is that they do not have to pay if the primary motive is the payout, and it can be proved.

If that caveat is not correct, then I will, of course, admit that I am wrong.

[hgc]

The government in America was designed to secure the rights of the individual, the collective has no rights.


Design has nothing to do with it. Rights are like Forest Gump's "stupid" -- they is as they does.

If John Galt wants to take his magic motor and go live in a secret valley, that's his right -- unless the collective can bring enough force to take it away and use it for their own nefarious purposes. Then the collective has the right.

[Distracted1]

My initial reaction to the OP was that they were opposites. I now think that you are correct. Thanks.

The veneer is different, not the substance.

I disagree. From what I remember of "Atlas Shrugged" , sacrifice for another is "Objectivism's" biggist sin.

John Galt would consider it immoral to sacrifice his own desires for acheivement for the sake of anyone else's- including a brother, uncle, or wife.

Galt would surely find more to admire in the actions of "Mr. Potter" who was using his superior resourses and business acumen to slowly monopolise all of the towns businesses- thus turning the "rabble" into his own private feifdom.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Design has nothing to do with it. Rights are like Forest Gump's "stupid" -- they is as they does.

If John Galt wants to take his magic motor and go live in a secret valley, that's his right -- unless the collective can bring enough force to take it away and use it for their own nefarious purposes. Then the collective has the right.

Might makes right is nothing more than mob rule which is in essence anarchy.

Ability does not give the right.

[Distracted1]

Okay, I'll bite.
What does give the right?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Okay, I'll bite.
What does give the right?

The individual is born with rights. The collective only has privileges given to it by individuals. Those privileges given to the collective can never supersede the rights of the individual.

[Distracted1]

I accept that.
"Life, Liberty, the Persuit of Happiness..et..al.."

To secure these rights governments are instituted among man...then all hell breaks loose.

How do the priveledges of the collective never supercede the rights of the individual though?
We punish criminals...actually ,calling them criminals, we strip them of most of their rights (up to and sometimes including their right to life)-as a collective, and consider it justified. Is that not an instance of the priveledges of the collective superceding the rights of the individual?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I accept that.
"Life, Liberty, the Persuit of Happiness..et..al.."

To secure these rights governments are instituted among man...then all hell breaks loose.

How do the priveledges of the collective never supercede the rights of the individual though?
We punish criminals...actually ,calling them criminals, we strip them of most of their rights (up to and sometimes including their right to life)-as a collective, and consider it justified. Is that not an instance of the priveledges of the collective superceding the rights of the individual?

The criminal has encroached the rights of an individual. The proper role of government (given this role by individuals) is to remedy the encroachment.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To secure these rights governments are instituted among man...then all hell breaks loose.

Fantastic line. Cheers!

:) :) :)

[hgc]

The individual is born with rights. The collective only has privileges given to it by individuals. Those privileges given to the collective can never supersede the rights of the individual.


Which rights are individuals born with? Since you are so certain of this, I assume you can give a list.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which rights are individuals born with? Since you are so certain of this, I assume you can give a list.

The right to life.

The right to liberty.

[hgc]

The right to life.

The right to liberty.


OK. And who bestows these rights on newly born individuals?

Do individuals born into slavery have the right to liberty? If yes, how do you know they have these rights?
Do innocent civilians who are killed in war have the right to life? How might they express this right?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

OK. And who bestows these rights on newly born individuals?

Do individuals born into slavery have the right to liberty? If yes, how do you know they have these rights?
Do innocent civilians who are killed in war have the right to life? How might they express this right?

Nobody bestows these rights, they are inherent in humanity due consciousness.

Yes, they should refuse slavery.

Yes. The fact that another violates your right does not invalidate the right.

If one were to postulate that these rights are not inherent than the foundation for many evils will be established.

[hgc]

Nobody bestows these rights, they are inherent in humanity due consciousness.

Yes, they should refuse slavery.

Yes. The fact that another violates your right does not invalidate the right.

If one were to postulate that these rights are not inherent than the foundation for many evils will be established.


If I "refuse" slavery, but am still not free of my bonds, then have I still got the right to liberty? Where's it hiding?

I postulate that these rights are not inherent. Did I just loose evil upon the world?

The proof of rights is when they are exercised. All else is wankery. There is no evidence whatsoever that people are born with rights (if so, please provide). Rights don't exist as naturally occurring phenomena.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If I "refuse" slavery, but am still not free of my bonds, then have I still got the right to liberty? Where's it hiding?

You are confusing circumstance with reality.

I postulate that these rights are not inherent. Did I just loose evil upon the world?

This idea allows all to do anything.

Why is it that people do not murder constantly? Is it because they fear punishment or is it that they "know" that the other man has a right to life?

The proof of rights is when they are exercised. All else is wankery. There is no evidence whatsoever that people are born with rights (if so, please provide). Rights don't exist as naturally occurring phenomena.

You seem to be advocating might makes right. Does a man's power to take possession of your children give him the right to your children?

[hgc]

You are confusing circumstance with reality.


Trying to parse that statement, and can't make heads nor tails of it. What's the circumstance and what's the reality?


This idea allows all to do anything.

Why is it that people do not murder constantly? Is it because they fear punishment or is it that they "know" that the other man has a right to life?

You seem to be advocating might makes right. Does a man's power to take possession of your children give him the right to your children?


Well, something stops people from doing the "wrong" thing, except when it doesn't. For those that are morally constrained from murder and mayhem, it's a good and oft discussed question as to where that constraint comes from. I happen to think that it's necessary for the success of civil society - and thus people are trained from the cradle to bahave themselves. But certainly the fear of punishment is important for some people.

I'm not advocating anything. Just keeping it real.

[dudalb]

The "Natural Rights" theory has always seemed full of holes to me.

[dudalb]

George Bailey never made me read a sixty-five page monologue.

You win the thread.

[Soapy Sam]

So I take it you haven't read the book. I don't know why everyone gets so hung up on the fictional motor. It's more a symbolic potential than an actual potential. But of all the reasons to think of John Galt or Atlas Shrugged as "one odd book" this seems one of the weakest.



George Bailey's psychology is pretty messed up in the extreme. Sure, there are reasons why he can't leave town immediately, but we're told he's never, ever been able to take a trip to anywhere. He's unable to "make a dime" from all the houses his company has built and all the loans they've provided, while at the same time the rest of the town appears to prosper. Then there's the contrived emergency that sends George, mere minutes early, over the edge to the contemplation of suicide versus jail. The deconstruction is that after all his efforts, all his being a stand-up guy and savings people from themselves, his choice is to off himself. For such a smart guy, he should know that insurance doesn't pay for a suicide, and yet that's the crux on which the movie is based, and by which the angel Clarence is sent to save him.

Both characters have extreme issues and when viewed by the light of reality waver considerably.
No, I have not read the book.
Nor am I "hung up" on the fictional motor. I was merely amused by the term "Randian" relating to someone claiming a motor driven by static electricity, making an appearance on the James Randi Forum.
To the best of my understanding, both works are fiction, implying that the characters don't actually have any psychology.

Not that it matters.

[RobRoy]

No, I have not read the book.
Nor am I "hung up" on the fictional motor. I was merely amused by the term "Randian" relating to someone claiming a motor driven by static electricity, making an appearance on the James Randi Forum.

Mea culpa on the misinterpretation of your post, comparison to other people's hang ups, and the reasoning you provided for naming Atlas Shrugged "one odd book".

Since you didn't provide any other elements of the book, it seemed like this is what you based your surmise upon. This, of course, begs the question what did induce you to label the novel "one odd book" and also, what did you mean by your initial comments? :confused:

To the best of my understanding, both works are fiction, implying that the characters don't actually have any psychology.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were comparing the fictional characteristics of John Galt to George Bailey. Further, I thought you were making that comparison to determine which one "seems like a pretty regular guy."

In my experience, all characters have a psychology, even if it's just a pale and poor reflection of the author's. Critics, fans and even psychologists make use of writers' characters to provide perspective on authors all the time.

However, if we are not to use the perceived psychology of the the two characters to compare them, what then would you like to use? :boggled:

Not that it matters.

Not really, no, unless we're going to make statements about the two works or the characters and then discuss them. :D

[juniper_ann]

I like It's A Wonderful Life. It's a metaphor for how someone who doesn't look especially important can make positive differences in many people's lives. We all know we all die. Death is the great equalizer, but everyone leaves a legacy. It's nice to think during a winter holiday break that just being kind and doing what you feel is right can make a difference to other people. I buy into that around the holidays.

I always wonder what Clarence chose not to show George. “Oh, look, there’s Ralph the mechanic. You don’t remember, but you helped a bag lady across the street as a kid. If you hadn’t, she would have been run over by a truck, killing both her and her unborn child—who would not have grown up to become a serial killer. Instead, you helped a serial killer survive, so you never met Ralph. Or Alice. Or Steve. Or …” No life can only leave positive ripples.

What I though was sad ever since I was ~12 was that in the “George” universe, George’s wife Mary doesn’t wear glasses, but in the “no George” universe, she does wear glasses. Since there were no contacts at the time, this means that in the “George” universe, Mary has lived in a blurry world for years…perhaps in an effort to please her frustrated, depressive husband? :(

Err…sorry about stomping on your holiday fuzzies, Senex.

[Distracted1]

Off topic I'm sure, but in the non-George universe Mary is a librarian- perhaps years of fine print under low lights contributed to her eye problems?

I realise the stories themselves are both well into the realm of fantasy; I posted the thread to discuss the characters, not the unlikely plot lines.

[RobRoy]

Off topic I'm sure, but in the non-George universe Mary is a librarian- perhaps years of fine print under low lights contributed to her eye problems?

I realise the stories themselves are both well into the realm of fantasy; I posted the thread to discuss the characters, not the unlikely plot lines.

I think this could fall into the line of character discussion. Consider that without George there, Mary either must have decided that no man was good enough to marry, or no man considered her worthy of pursuit. Either choice seems rather unlikely, but the story presents us with that as reality.

Interestingly, this parallels with Rand's Atlas Shrugged as Dagny knew that there was one man out there who was the right one for her, and no other, no matter how "heroic" would do until she found him.