Ayn Rand Bungles Building Demolition and Kills Firefighters

[hgc]

From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23company.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1187842308-YJYpk0mSX69Ho+ezX+65Bw&oref=slogin)

The John Galt Corporation of the Bronx, hired last year for the dangerous and complex job of demolishing the former Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, where two firefighters died last Saturday, has apparently never done any work like it. Indeed, Galt does not seem to have done much of anything since it was incorporated in 1983.

...


Read it and weap. Some corrupt cases of arrested development had the vision to name their company "The John Galt Corporation," and then get the job of being incredibly, tragically mediocre at doing some very complicated, difficult work.

[Foolmewunz]

Being that it's the same scaffolding folks who've had problems already, it's particularly horrid to have heard five minutes ago on CNN International that a SCAFFOLD has collapsed at the sight, injuring more firemen??? Did anyone else get this news - I can't find it on the web, but it was HOT... I'm still watching CNN but have to go out.

ETA: Found it on their "wire". It's from 4:45 pm Thursday (EDT, I guess).

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/23/thursday/index.html

[Cain]

This is yet another awkward attempt by socialist city planners who intend to discredit and destroy the producers of the world, in this case a demolition firm. The whim-worshipping second-handers better pray to their non-existent god that this does not cause Objectivists and other Rand enthusiasts to start a general strike, which would quickly cripple the world economy.

[boooeee]

From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23company.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1187842308-YJYpk0mSX69Ho+ezX+65Bw&oref=slogin)




Read it and weap. Some corrupt cases of arrested development had the vision to name their company "The John Galt Corporation," and then get the job of being incredibly, tragically mediocre at doing some very complicated, difficult work.

Who is John Galt?

[firecoins]

Who is John Galt?
Was John Galt behind 9/11?

[RandFan]

This is yet another awkward attempt by socialist city planners who intend to discredit and destroy the producers of the world, in this case a demolition firm. The whim-worshipping second-handers better pray to their non-existent god that this does not cause Objectivists and other Rand enthusiasts to start a general strike, which would quickly cripple the world economy.Not half bad. :)

[RandFan]

Who is John Galt?:eek: :eye-poppi

Oh, say it ain't so, who is John Galt? Ok, that's it. Time to put Rand BACK on the postage stamp.

Google is you friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_%28Atlas_Shrugged%29)

[RandFan]

:( :o

Oh damn, I just stepped in it.

Who is John Galt?

:doh:

This isn't going to look good on my resume.

[hgc]

:( :o

Oh damn, I just stepped in it.

Who is John Galt?

:doh:

This isn't going to look good on my resume.


Better that you caught it before anyone else did! :p

[Katana]

Better that you caught it before anyone else did! :p


My thoughts exactly.

:D

[The Painter]

:eek: :eye-poppi

Oh, say it ain't so, who is John Galt? Ok, that's it. Time to put Rand BACK on the postage stamp.

Google is you friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_%28Atlas_Shrugged%29)


I did a google image search and this came up


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/atlas_shrugged3.jpg

I don't know. Some how I pictured him different.

[Major Major]

It's all an example of short-term whim-worshiping altruistic-mystic second-hander thinking.

If they'd called the firm "The Howard Roark Project Demolition Company" ("Our Motto: 'We Laugh'") all this trouble never would have happened.

:blackcat:

[dudalb]

From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23company.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1187842308-YJYpk0mSX69Ho+ezX+65Bw&oref=slogin)




Read it and weap. Some corrupt cases of arrested development had the vision to name their company "The John Galt Corporation," and then get the job of being incredibly, tragically mediocre at doing some very complicated, difficult work.

.In other words,your average Objectivists.:D

They seem to be as good at building restoration as Ayn Rand was at writing.

[leftysergeant]

Any bets on whether they are a union shop?

[dudalb]

Unions are for Whim Worshipping Anti Life Second Handers.

[Beerina]

Well, no true John Galt corporation would ever suck at the massive tit of government.

I wonder how Darth Vader Corp., or We Love Chavez & Chomsky, Inc. would have fared on the job.

[cybermanikan]

I still just don't get the Ayn Rand thing and why her ideas linger on... So, here are my pathetic thoughts but in all honesty I am also hoping someone can explain to me how anyone started taking Objectivism seriously and where the purported "depth" to it's ideas comes from? Seriously, though, if anyone has knowledge of the history of Objectivism and Randism I'd love some perspective on how this became part of several subcultures.

Now my biased critical view:
Basically if I were to sum up my ambivalence (and some dislike) of Ayn's so-called Objectivism it would be:

Concepts of Existentialism poorly copied (plagiarized?) into a shallow postmodernist perspective and wrapped in a thick layer of narcissistic self-fulfillment.

That's just my take. I personally know a few people who I often respect for their intelligence who are big fans of Rand's books. While I thought they were boring I would understand if they could say, "Oh, I like those because there was this tone of a philosophy underlying the story that I ascribe to and I thought the stories were cool...". Instead the usually pummel me with descriptions of their "rational self-interest" and self-actualization until I glaze over.

[boooeee]

:( :o

Oh damn, I just stepped in it.

Who is John Galt?

:doh:

This isn't going to look good on my resume.

:) You were honest enough to leave your original post unedited.

[dudalb]

Well, no true John Galt corporation would ever suck at the massive tit of government.

I wonder how Darth Vader Corp., or We Love Chavez & Chomsky, Inc. would have fared on the job.

Probably Just as badly.
Noah Chomsky is another individual who is with Ayn Rand in my "How The Hell Can Anybody Take Them Seriously,Let Alone Make Them Objects Of Worship" department.

[dudalb]

I still just don't get the Ayn Rand thing and why her ideas linger on... So, here are my pathetic thoughts but in all honesty I am also hoping someone can explain to me how anyone started taking Objectivism seriously and where the purported "depth" to it's ideas comes from? Seriously, though, if anyone has knowledge of the history of Objectivism and Randism I'd love some perspective on how this became part of several subcultures.

Now my biased critical view:
Basically if I were to sum up my ambivalence (and some dislike) of Ayn's so-called Objectivism it would be:

Concepts of Existentialism poorly copied (plagiarized?) into a shallow postmodernist perspective and wrapped in a thick layer of narcissistic self-fulfillment.

That's just my take. I personally know a few people who I often respect for their intelligence who are big fans of Rand's books. While I thought they were boring I would understand if they could say, "Oh, I like those because there was this tone of a philosophy underlying the story that I ascribe to and I thought the stories were cool...". Instead the usually pummel me with descriptions of their "rational self-interest" and self-actualization until I glaze over.


Rand is like the "Matrix" films:Great for Intellectual wannabes who want to be though of as deep philosophers but don't want to do the hard work necessary to actually be one.

[cybermanikan]

Probably Just as badly.
Noah Chomsky is another individual who is with Ayn Rand in my "How The Hell Can Anybody Take Them Seriously,Let Alone Make Them Objects Of Worship" department.
I actually enjoy Chomsky but certainly not as an object of worship. Radicalism is always scary, frankly. The I do agree with the assertion that the US engages in hegemony and acts of terrorism. It is another example of radial religious influence IMO.

Oh boy... hitting the post button... Probably opened a big-@ can of worms on that one... but wasn't saying it to be really provocative. I'll be over in politics forum hiding...;)

[hgc]

It's all an example of short-term whim-worshiping altruistic-mystic second-hander thinking.

If they'd called the firm "The Howard Roark Project Demolition Company" ("Our Motto: 'We Laugh'") all this trouble never would have happened.

:blackcat:


Good point! If I wanted to set up a company that tears down buildings, and was insane enough to name it for an Ayn Rand hero, Roarke would have been my man too.

[RandFan]

That's just my take. I personally know a few people who I often respect for their intelligence who are big fans of Rand's books. While I thought they were boring I would understand if they could say, "Oh, I like those because there was this tone of a philosophy underlying the story that I ascribe to and I thought the stories were cool...". Instead the usually pummel me with descriptions of their "rational self-interest" and self-actualization until I glaze over.

My take: Rand popularized egoism in a time when the world was experiencing a paradigm shift of ideology and fundamental moral concepts. Popular culture and the rhetoric of the day was creating a false dichotomy. On one side were the workers and on the other there were those who exploited the workers. In communist countries there was a rising tide of anti-intellectual and anti-entrepreneurial sentiment. It was reasoned that the only thing necessary for productivity was working people. Power to the people.

So, it was reasoned that the answer to the problem was simply to get rid of those who exploited. Business owners. Property holders (farmers). In short, capitalists.

Rand's books were the antithesis of this movement. Just as Dostoevsky and Orwell before her, Rand filled in a puzzle of human nature. Humans are not all created equal in talent. There are those who are driven to create great art. There are those who are driven to be political leaders. There are those like Edison who are driven to invent and create. There are those like Henry Ford who are driven to create enterprise and find solutions to problems. There are those who are driven to power. There are those who are driven to fame.

Fidel Castro discovered that if he gave his artists freedom to keep their money then they would make great art. So, artists are but a handful of individuals, AIU, in Cuba who are allowed to engage in free market economics.

Why not let the Baseball players make as much money as the market would let them have? Like the artists, they wouldn't want to defect? Why not let the entrepreneurs have an unlimited potential to make money? If you would do that you could solve problems.

This is the message of Ayn Rand that resonated with people. They understood that the communist principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was fundamentally flawed. Ability doesn't guarantee output. Many people must be motivated. Promising them that their needs will be met simply wasn't enough to inspire gifted minds to solve problems of productivity and to solve problems by invention.

Altruism simply isn't enough.

In the end, Rand was not rigorous in her philosophy. Objectivism is a cult phenomenon. There are no panaceas. For all of its potential capitalism remains a flawed system. What we need to understand is that humans and human societies are complex and dynamic. There is no one size fits all. The best way to solve the problems of what public policies to adopt is to understand human nature.

For advancing this important aspect of humans Rand deserves her historical position. I don't put her up with Nitze or Kant but I easily put her up alongside Orwell and Dostoevsky.

Thanks Ayn.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2194/randzo7.jpg

[Kilgore Trout]

Here's Ayn in her own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pHxlwFgOc) being interviewed by a rather ticked off Mike Wallace. (That's part one but the other parts should be easily found in the panel to the right.)

For what it's worth, I did enjoy Atlas Shrugged, but mainly for the sexy bits and the characters. The philosophy was a bit hit or miss, as it pertains to the novel. Sometimes interesting, sometimes implausible, always heavy handed.

[RandFan]

Here's Ayn in her own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pHxlwFgOc) being interviewed by a rather ticked off Mike Wallace. (That's part one but the other parts should be easily found in the panel to the right.)

For what it's worth, I did enjoy Atlas Shrugged, but mainly for the sexy bits and the characters. The philosophy was a bit hit or miss, as it pertains to the novel. Sometimes interesting, sometimes implausible, always heavy handed.Thanks, I've seen it a number of times but it is always a good view. I like how Wallace asks Rand if it is true that she questions basic assumptions such as religion our Judeao Christian Religion, or modified regulated capitalist government, rule by the majority will, you have scorned churches and the concpet of god.

Oh my!

Such sacred cows should not be gored.

It really is a great video. Alas, I don't think most can view it in a critical light, I mean they likley are not able to get past those points that trouble them.

[hgc]

Thanks, I've seen it a number of times but it is always a good view. I like how Wallace asks Rand if it is true that she questions basic assumptions such as religion our Judeao Christian Religion, or modified regulated capitalist government, rule by the majority will, you have scorned churches and the concpet of god.

Oh my!

Such sacred cows should not be gored.

It really is a great video. Alas, I don't think most can view it in a critical light, I mean they likley are not able to get past those points that trouble them.


She scorned religion! I guess Ayn wasn't all bad. I see as well that Chris Wallace learned how to be an ass at Papa's knee.

[Tricky]

The John Galt Corporation of the Bronx, hired last year for the dangerous and complex job of demolishing the former Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, where two firefighters died last Saturday, has apparently never done any work like it. Indeed, Galt does not seem to have done much of anything since it was incorporated in 1983.

"...When asked how they felt about the loss of life resulting from their tragically mediocre work, they shrugged."

[Tricky]

Thanks, I've seen it a number of times but it is always a good view. I like how Wallace asks Rand if it is true that she questions basic assumptions such as religion our Judeao Christian Religion, or modified regulated capitalist government, rule by the majority will, you have scorned churches and the concpet of god.

Oh my!

Such sacred cows should not be gored.

It really is a great video. Alas, I don't think most can view it in a critical light, I mean they likley are not able to get past those points that trouble them.
Yeah, it's nice that she recognizes that religion is not the arbiter of morality, but my problem with Rand has always been that she tosses aside altruism along with religion. While I believe that we operate out of "enlightened self-interest", I think Rand takes a far to narrow view of "enlightened". She recognizes only the happiness of the individual rather than the overall happiness of a whole society. In short, she completely disregards the whole concept of "greater good". This is why, by my morality, I cannot agree with her philosophy.

She calls it "objectivsm", but in reality, it is just the opposite. It is quite extreme in its subjective nature, considering only one viewpoint, which is self. I feel that her philosophy is a mindset that leads to the excesses of greed that lead to greater unhappiness in the world. In my own version of "enlightened self-interest", it is in my self-interest to have less unhappiness in the world. It comes back to me more slowly that way, but when it does, it is better.

[Ranillon]

Rand's books were the antithesis of this movement. Just as Dostoevsky and Orwell before her, Rand filled in a puzzle of human nature. Humans are not all created equal in talent. There are those who are driven to create great art. There are those who are driven to be political leaders. There are those like Edison who are driven to invent and create. There are those like Henry Ford who are driven to create enterprise and find solutions to problems. There are those who are driven to power. There are those who are driven to fame.

Fidel Castro discovered that if he gave his artists freedom to keep their money then they would make great art. So, artists are but a handful of individuals, AIU, in Cuba who are allowed to engage in free market economics.

Why not let the Baseball players make as much money as the market would let them have? Like the artists, they wouldn't want to defect? Why not let the entrepreneurs have an unlimited potential to make money? If you would do that you could solve problems.


Honestly, isn't this just a round-about way of arguing for Social Darwinism? It's just that instead of terms like "survival of the fittest" or "the strong should rule" (which nowadays have obvious negative implications when used in a social context) you use positive, up-side slogans along the lines of "Let the best be the best" or "take responsibility for your life." In the end, however, I don't see much of a practical difference. The one just uses better PR. :)

[Beerina]

> Like the artists, they wouldn't want to defect? Why not let the
> entrepreneurs have an unlimited potential to make money?

I would like to think that, if I were an artist in Cuba, and "allowed" (sheesh) to earn as much as I could, while all my colleagues in different industries slaved under the throttlehold of an arrogant, armed thug, that I, too, would have the integrity to defect as soon as possible instead of sitting around touting the glories of communism, sitting on my capitalist pile of cash.

[dudalb]

For advancing this important aspect of humans Rand deserves her historical position. I don't put her up with Nitze or Kant but I easily put her up alongside Orwell and Dostoevsky.

Both Orwell and Doestovsky are vastly better writers then Rand was.
They could create belivable characters with depth,something Rand could not.

[leftysergeant]

I have to admit that I haven't read much of Rand. Starting with Anthem was probably not the best way to appreciate her talent, assuming that she really has any such.

ZZZZZZZ

[hgc]

I have to admit that I haven't read much of Rand. Starting with Anthem was probably not the best way to appreciate her talent, assuming that she really has any such.

ZZZZZZZ


Anthem is the best, since it has the least of her "talent" on display.

[cybermanikan]

My take: Rand popularized egoism in a time when the world was experiencing a paradigm shift of ideology and fundamental moral concepts...


Cool, thank you RandFan! Your post was really interesting. It certainly helped me fill in some blanks I had about Ayn's background position in history.


So, it was reasoned that the answer to the problem was simply to get rid of those who exploited. Business owners. Property holders (farmers). In short, capitalists.

...driven to create enterprise and find solutions to problems. There are those who are driven to power. There are those who are driven to fame. ...

Why not let the Baseball players make as much money as the market would let them have? Like the artists, they wouldn't want to defect? Why not let the entrepreneurs have an unlimited potential to make money? If you would do that you could solve problems.


So, essentially it sounds as if Rand was an early anarcho-capitalist. As was mentioned earlier this essentially creates a system of social darwinism (which is an unfair term as it was Herbert Spencer who first defined that monster). This has been my take on previous readings of Ayn's "objectivism" and comments about it.

This raises massive problems for me... and a chance to separate Chomsky from Rand: 1) I would agree with Chomsky that such a system would "lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history", 2) that the concept of freedom to excel falls apart as soon as such tyrants come to power ("The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke", again Chomsky), 3) such a system would be yet another "oppression by minority rule" system which defies much of what we know about human mental health.


Altruism simply isn't enough.


Within the context given (Communism) this has a half-truth ring to it. However, from what I've seen as the cultish ideas formed on objectivism, from what I've heard and read so far, it would seem Rand was mostly focused on the egoism part.

Just as a note: From what we know about human psychology and biology altruism is a trait as well as necessary for equitable social relationships (which is probably why it's a trait). Indeed much of what we are finding out about the human mind shows that it has special features (fronto-mesolimbic networks, for example)* that play critical roles in altruism, on top of those probably inherited from more ancient species. This kind of information, along with social and philosophical research and thinking, suggests egoism is a poor match for human society.


In the end, Rand was not rigorous in her philosophy. Objectivism is a cult phenomenon.


Indeed... I would have to agree. From what I've read, and frankly not a whole lot so it's a little presumptuous of me, Rand was a fairly shallow thinker and her ideas were really reflections of ideas already worked out (and being worked out) in much more depth by others.


For advancing this important aspect of humans Rand deserves her historical position. I don't put her up with Nitze or Kant but I easily put her up alongside Orwell and Dostoevsky.


Again, just from what I've read Rand's works are nowhere as rich as Orwell's and Dostoevsky's. But, well, that's my opinion so I don't consider it a real arguing point against your opinion. In any case both of the other artists had immense literary impact plus they dealt mostly with deconstructing communism and authoritarianism, not with fostering anything like egoism.

* The research I mention about frontal-mesolimbic networks in altruism comes from this reference:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- look up "Human fronto–mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation, Oct 9th, 2006

[UserGoogol]

So, essentially it sounds as if Rand was an early anarcho-capitalist. As was mentioned earlier this essentially creates a system of social darwinism (which is an unfair term as it was Herbert Spencer who first defined that monster). This has been my take on previous readings of Ayn's "objectivism" and comments about it.

Actually, she hated Anarcho-capitalism for being a bunch of dirty hippies. Although since she thought non-voluntary taxation was unjust, she might as well have been one.

[Dorian Gray]

John Galt was a Scottish novelist in the late 1700s - early 1800s. What's the deal?

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, despite being nearly 200 years old, he's kidnapping the best and brightest of our society, building perpetual motion machines, and flirting with a woman from a railroad that has an odd sexual fetish. That's what the deal is.

[a_unique_person]

"The Howard Roark Project Demolition Company" ("Our Motto: 'We Laugh'")

:)

[RandFan]

Honestly, isn't this just a round-about way of arguing for Social Darwinism? It's just that instead of terms like "survival of the fittest" or "the strong should rule" (which nowadays have obvious negative implications when used in a social context) you use positive, up-side slogans along the lines of "Let the best be the best" or "take responsibility for your life." In the end, however, I don't see much of a practical difference. The one just uses better PR. :)(emphasis mine).

What is "just a round-about way of arguing Social Darwinism"? I'm not arguing in favor of objectivism or any set philosophy. I only think Rand popularized an important aspect of human nature. Nothing more. I'm not advocating any policy nor am I defending Rand's philosophy.

So, I can't respond because I don't know of what you are referring to when you say "this".

In any event, please see E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology). Please note that Wilson was attacked on the grounds that he was arguing for Social Darwinism. He wasn't of course. He endured much mockery and derision from liberals proving that irrational resistance to science isn't monopolized by conservatives.

I still don't know what "this" is but,

I subscribe to no set ideology or philosophy.
I subscribe to the notion that attempting to derive an ought from an is, is a fallacy.
I find social Darwinism antithetical to human understanding and enlightenment.
I believe it is ignorance to ignore that evolution (genetics) contributes to and significantly influences human behavior.I hope that is clear. Sadly I suspect that it is not.

[Ranillon]

(emphasis mine).

What is "just a round-about way of arguing Social Darwinism"? I'm not arguing in favor of objectivism or any set philosophy. I only think Rand popularized an important aspect of human nature. Nothing more. I'm not advocating any policy nor am I defending Rand's philosophy.

So, I can't respond because I don't know of what you are referring to when you say "this".


Whoa, chill out. I was just talking about the statement itself, not your belief or disbelief of said statement.

And, you could have asked for clarification without the over-reaction. No need to try to start an argument when one doesn't exist in the first place.

[leftysergeant]

Found an interesting update on the incident at, of all places, 911truth.org.

It seems that busy-body environmentalist whackos and whiny neighborhood activist are to blame for the whole bloody mess.


http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007830501693