The Fountainhead: What was Gail Wynand's crime?
A little back and forth with KHALLING on the "OBJECTIVIST BAD GUYS?" post got me to thinking.
I'm an Objectivist. I've read most of the books and consider myself well informed on the subject. I understand all about force and fraud.
But now I'm at something of a loss.
If I had been one of Wynand's victims, if he had destroyed my life for no better reason that profit and power - I would have killed him.
No joke. Really.
Why not?
What recourse does an average Joe have against a billionaire with a newspaper?
Only Sam Colt can equalize that kind of social disparity.
As for his life - he was the one who set the stakes when he chose to DESTROY mine.
Sure for me it was only my hopes and dreams, my career, my family - lets see what else can I add to the list?! At some point that kind of damage warrants killing.
Consider also, how many more innocent people would he crush if he's not stopped.
No, I would have no compunction about pulling that trigger.
But, if his smear campaign is just the usual "absent malice" BS that papers often resort to - the half-lies/half-truths that pass for reporting sometimes, then he has actually committed no fraud.
What crime has he actually committed that warrants his death?
(Before you say "none" remember that Mrs. Rand herself killed him off to atone for his sins.)
I'm sure I'm missing something.
'Little help here?
I'm an Objectivist. I've read most of the books and consider myself well informed on the subject. I understand all about force and fraud.
But now I'm at something of a loss.
If I had been one of Wynand's victims, if he had destroyed my life for no better reason that profit and power - I would have killed him.
No joke. Really.
Why not?
What recourse does an average Joe have against a billionaire with a newspaper?
Only Sam Colt can equalize that kind of social disparity.
As for his life - he was the one who set the stakes when he chose to DESTROY mine.
Sure for me it was only my hopes and dreams, my career, my family - lets see what else can I add to the list?! At some point that kind of damage warrants killing.
Consider also, how many more innocent people would he crush if he's not stopped.
No, I would have no compunction about pulling that trigger.
But, if his smear campaign is just the usual "absent malice" BS that papers often resort to - the half-lies/half-truths that pass for reporting sometimes, then he has actually committed no fraud.
What crime has he actually committed that warrants his death?
(Before you say "none" remember that Mrs. Rand herself killed him off to atone for his sins.)
I'm sure I'm missing something.
'Little help here?
While it may seem tangential, his sentiment is one that may well apply to you. Had an industry tycoon destroyed your life, your recourses would seem to be small. You could sue which was a risky undertaking when "Fountainhead" was written but more viable now, find another way to take the fight to the tycoon or be ammunition for another's pursuit for justice. Killing him would have done more to destroy your life than the mere act. I don't care what movies show about "whacks," gang kills and violence in general, it's an entirely different matter to take someone's life out of malice. However you may intellectually justify the act, the average person just doesn't have the mettle for killing over business concerns.
The strange situation exists that people who live rapacious lives full of greed and gluttony of any sort and who covet another's success really live quite shallow lives themselves. They might present a superior image but it is shallowness and meekness that comprises their lives.
However, business is not for the weak. You've got to be tough to succeed and your success might just mean the failure of a competitor. It doesn't make you malicious or mean or anything unless your personality is that way and you would be a miserable SOB whether you were successful or not.
There's another point about killing that many people forget: When you kill someone, you end a universe of perception however unbalanced or mean spirited that perception may be. If the person were alive, he could change, with death, change on the living plane becomes chemical decomposition. Intellectual change on the part of a dead person forever ceases.
Anyone who volunteers for the infantry in time of war is the very definition of hero.
And as one who has never been "there" I can never possess the wisdom you've earned at so dear a price.
But with that said, a great many people know more than I on every possible subject.
I cannot allow that to deter my efforts to discern the truth.
So here goes....
--
"...it's an entirely different matter to take someone's life out of malice. However you may intellectually justify the act, the average person just doesn't have the mettle for killing over business concerns."
Mal·ice [mal-is]
noun
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.
(dictionary.reference.com)
"Malice" doesn't apply. Does the prosecutor act out of malice? The judge? The jailor? The executioner?
--
Business? What "business?"
We're talking about a man, above the law, who has either maliciously attacked me or aided another to do so.
(You can't hand a gun to a maniac knowing what he intends.)
Business?
When I bought a crummy car off a lemon-lot THAT was just business.
I never thought to kill the guy who sold it to me. Or blow him up or torch his lot or anything else. I never had any such thoughts because, knowing the risks involved, I chose to buy a used car off a lemon-lot.
I'm a rational man and like most men I know when it's "just business."
--
As to what the average man can do...
In matters of JUSTICE a great many people, average Joe's, have the mettle to exact it.
Consider backwoods "justice".
You don't have to be twisted to be able to live with yourself after killing the sadistic drunk that shot your brother.
Consider the "good" war.
Few soldiers are warmongers, but many join to exact justice and punish those who've attacked us - perhaps even you?
(Remove the element of justice - as in any of several conflicts our boys have been dragged into over the years - and few soldiers want anything more than just to go home alive.)
--
Sue a billionaire?! An average Joe?! Dude, really? (I think that says it all. I'll spare us all several paragraphs just to get to the same place.)
--
Finally, as for the dead being unable to change. I could care less.
Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the victim.
Where is JUSTICE for the victim? Does the victim not DESERVE justice?
If the offense is minor enough that the guilty has time to ponder his sin and change his ways, all the better. But first there must be justice.
And for those of you who oppose capital punishment, consider this:
You cannot possess a right you refuse to recognize in others.
A thief has no right to complain when he is stolen from.
To murder a man is to steal his ultimate possession.
The murderer forfeits his right to life then instant he denies his victim his.
----
Whole lot of verbiage, but as KHALLING said there was a lot to mull over.
So - here it is... What did I get wrong?
I really am looking for dissent - it sharpens the mind.
Remember, dissent is not disrespect, it is just the back and forth of intelligent discourse.
Many times I have been shown the "thing" I hadn't thought of.
I can be persuaded - but you have to convince.
Malice - from the latin Malus or bad. The desire to cause p;win, harm or injury to another. A hateful act or an act driven by hate.
I'm not so far off. Possibly a better word would have been revenge but I take your point. And a prosecutor may indeed operate out of malice as my a judge. We can't assume to know the inner workings of people.
I have met many business people over the years. Some are absolutely above board, honest and sincere. Others are downright thugs and operate as such. I found the same thing in the military. Some are stellar officers who take care of their men and others ride their charges like they are mules except mules may get treated better. There is a whole operation called Red Team who are supposed to weed out abusive officers and senior NCOs. It works marginally at best.
If someone sold you a lemon intentionally, you would sue. Our forefathers would have taken the guy out and beat the crap out of him, taken their money back and burned the car. We have lost much of that kind of sentiment.
All business is personal. Every single business deal is personal. "It's just business" is a phrase used by people when doing something to someone else that is distasteful. They clear their own conscience by using that phrase. But it's all personal.
I understand justice and the concept. Part of the American myth is the "Lone Avenger" who comes into town to exact justice when the local townsfolk are unable to do so. Eventually the average guys join the fight but this is pure myth. What happens to people who really try to clean up the system? Ask Bradley and Snowden.
There is no good war. I've been in war on three continents and can state with fact that there are wars of necessity but none of it is good. When your side wins, the war was good. When you lose, the war was bad. It's part of the human condition that we war and it will be with us always.
Your example of backwoods justice is based on your assumption of how someone would act, not how they do. I think my argument is sound.
Someone interviewed combatants after wars and discovered that up to 70% aim to miss when shooting at someone. Now, these are trained people who are taught to suspend all their upbringing and kill for the greater good and for justice for all. Even after all that. up to 70% still can't do it.
I understand the whole "Eye for an eye" thing but I don't think justice can be achieved by killing anyone. You might get emotional satisfaction but that's not justice
Justice - The process of using laws and the courts fairly judge and punish criminals.
Personal retribution cannot be justice.
You don't have to be twisted to live with killing someone but there are only certain kinds of people who can do so without severe psychological and physical ramifications. I have seen men as strong and big as an ox wilt when confronted with the prospect of killing someone even in the line of duty. Like I said, it's easy to talk about but quite another matter to actually carry out.
I served in the US Army Special Forces. I am a Vietnam veteran to give you my approximate age. You can find some songs I wrote and see my cute face at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
But the strangest thing has just happened to me. I don't believe it has ever happened before.
While going over your reply, responses to your counter-arguments forming as I read,
I had this vivid image of a foolish boy, a wet-behind-the-ears idealist, lecturing a wizened veteran on war and the virtue of violence.
--
I said at the beginning of my last response that I could never possess the wisdom you have earned.
This one time, I am going to meditate on my own words, shut the hell up and listen a little closer.
Sometimes point and counter-point only serve to obscure a greater truth.
I defer to you sir. Openly and honestly.
And I promise I will think on what you have said.
(One thing though, being a card-carrying skeptic I think that "pseudo-science" thing was a bit unfair. But with that small defense I will go back to shutting up. )
Thanks again. I am humbled.
There is nothing about war that ennobles anyone. The act itself and combat as an engaged soldier has some metaphysical elements but most soldiers never see a shot fired in anger. Unfortunately, I have seen too many. But the act itself only has validity for itself. Being in combat doesn't make me smarter, more aware, wiser or more learned. It simply means I did it and I survived. Combat arms is a job just like any other. I have lots of stories but most are only of interest to me and the few I served with.
To that point: I have been in some hellatious (I know it's not a word) combat but as bad as it might have seemed was nothing compared to those guys who stormed beaches at Normandy, Tarawa, Iwo Jima or the Rangers who stormed Monte Cassino and climbed up those cliffs.
I was in SPEC OPS and never fought in huge division sized battles. My specialty was infiltration and prisoner snatching but that doesn't make me wiser either. I do find it interesting when people develop a philosophy and attitude about killing that seems so cavalier. It's really quite a difficult undertaking especially one on one killing that is institutionalized such as a national army or an insurgency. Murder is an entirely different animal.
Anyway, good posting to you and I appreciate your advocacy.
If you stay on the Youtube link, you can see 20 some songs I posted there. "We Are The Government Class" and "Let The Government Dance Begin" are cynical, anti-government rages. Some a just comedy and some are satire but most are political.
Hellomuddafadda is a satire based on Alan Sherman's "Camp Grenada" but it's about Uberliberal parents who send their kid to a Taliban camp in Pakistan. It's quite funny.
Anyway, enjoy.
Post! and yes, handsome!
justice is not the courts and laws. the courts and the laws are there to ACHIEVE justice. otherwise, you are in the circular argument that whatever the courts and laws say are just.
so the courts under Mao the courts under sharia "law"are just?
one remedy we have not talked about here is depraved heart murder. There is remedy under our system for this-it is rarely applied. I wonder why
and that's exactly what he tried with Roark and Roark called his bluff.
Freedom of Speech is absolute, and you do not have the right to shoot someone if they are not slandering you. I have a right to myself and a right to my opinion. Even with a megaphone in my hand. If I do not have that right, I am your slave.
And what if the law will not to help? Can I shoot them then?
If not, what can I do?
Am I just a serf, a powerless pawn to anyone who - for whatever reason - is above the law?
When do I have the right to extract my own justice?
Never? Really? No way!
You need to read my techno-thriller released this fall, zero, Pendulum of Justice. ;)
http://www.amazon.com/Pendulum-Justice-H...
In "Atlas Shrugged" all of the passengers on the train in the Taggart Tunnel Disaster "deserved" to die because they held mixed-premise personal philosophies. In "The Fountainhead" Steven Mallory shoots (misses) Elsworth Toohey only because Toohey "knows the nature of the drooling beast." Like Wynand, Toohey only works in the arena of public opinion. He never coerces anyone. In "Atlas Shrugged" when Galt is rescued, all of the other men of the Valley overpower their targets; one soldier is wounded. Dagny kills her defenseless target because he refuses to surrender, but has lost the advantage and cannot stop her. He dithers and she shoots him for not being able to make up his mind.
So, the next time someone says, "I dunno..." do you shoot them for being mindless?
Fiction is not philosophical argument. Good fiction deals with values; and values come from ideas. We are working our way through the Deep Space 9 series. All kinds of moral conflicts play out. We do not always see the choices we would make under those circumstances. That is a discussion.
So, too, here, you can say "Wynand this... Toohey that..." ultimately, like Aesop's Fables, the Bible, Shakespeare, and Uncle Remus, the stories only frame a problem. But you cannot say, "If I were the fox, I would eat the stork rather than be insulted." You have to take the story on its own terms. We can discuss something else, entirely, which you seem to offer. But that would not be textual criticism of a novel.
(BTW - It is "Miss Rand." Miss Rand was Mrs. O'Connor.)
If I remember my Romantic Manifesto, that is one of the great virtues of writing in the romantic style - you can present entire world-views in simple characters.
If I remember a specific example given,(it's been almost 30 years - please forgive if I hose it up) I don't need to see Roark in every possible scenario to be able to ask myself - "What would Roark do?" (A fine device I use regularly.)
That ability would be lost if I could not trust his actions shown to be philosophically correct.
--
As for the Great Train Wreck, I never saw that as Rand saying they deserved to die, only that their tragic demise was a direct result of their wrong-headed thinking.
A kid walking across a train trestle doesn't deserve to fall - but if he does it was of his own doing.
--
As for Dagny's murder of a defenseless target - I only vaguely remember the scene - I'll have to get back to you on that one.
Finally, my sincere apologies for presenting this in the wrong category. I will be more careful of that in the future. As it is already so far along, I'm not sure how to migrate to the Philosophy thread.
Again sorry 'bout that.
Thank you for your reply too, of course. I'll reply at greater length but I'm still working through this one.
Roark understood why Wynand failed himself, and did not see it as an act against Roark himself.
As to the Colt, yeah, maybe it is sometimes the only answer, but I doubt Roark would have used it. His destruction was of something that belonged to his mind, and had been taken by looters. How many times had Roark struggled before that, trying to stay true to his craft? Having worked as a print reporter, I know about how editors try to smear people, and also refuse to smear those who should be. In fact, there were times when we refused to continue to pursue stories, after being so ordered, because it was the editor playing merely cat and mouse with someone's life. Sometimes we refused to give up information he wanted to continue such meaningless meanness. Yet, when a former reporter threatened to "settle a score", I warned the editor. Why, because, it is print, and not worth taking a life. There are other, and sometimes more effective ways of getting back. Threaten to drive around town with a sign on your car if the paper won't print the truth, pass out hand bills, go online. Call in the TV mainstream brainless media, which will cover anything. Nope, Mr. Colt should be saved for real threats against liberty, those against whole segments of the population. For instance, as we read, somewhere is the deep south, police officers are being trained to take up arms against,US citizens, if they refuse to abide by UN Agenda 21 (from one of the officers involved), which would end private property rights. Now, Mr. Colt may have to come out for something of that magnitude.
there is immoral action all around and moral reprisal. but taking someone's life is not moral remedy in the Fountainhead.
good points, stormi
Justice is the application of force to punish wrong-doing.
Our social contract says that we will forgo taking the law into our own hands so that we can live side-by-side without an unending series of vendettas. We cede that power to the state.
But you do now [Should say "NOT" not "NOW" 13DEC13 - Z] suddenly lose the right to justice should the state fails in its obligation to provide it.
Consider:
The["A" not "THE"] father's child is killed.
The murderer is caught based on evidence that is later disallowed. The jury never gets to see the damning evidence and they acquit him.
His guilt is beyond question but he walks out a free man.
It would be illegal to for the father to gun him down on the steps of the courthouse - but not immoral. The father did nothing wrong.
Did he?
(Don't just repeat a dogmatic belief - think about the scenario I just laid out.)
Did he do something wrong?
Of course not.
Did you know that it was perfectly "legal" for Germans to round up Jews and other undesirables? Laws were passed and ratified. Does that mae it moral? The Nazis were only trying to make it better for all. Remember, in 1937, Nazis confiscated guns to "Ensure the overall safety of the average citizen."
Things like that are why nobody should trust governments that want to "benefit" some people at the expense of others. Tae a look at the ACA. To benefit some, a large body must be made to pay and suffer reduced benefits. Confucius wrote: "Any act that helps another by lessening someone else, helps neither."
AS posits what would happen if the people forced to pay decide to turn their back on the whole process and "Drop Out" (With apologies to Tim Leary.)
Whether it was immoral or not would depend upon the moral philosophy you follow. If the father is a Christian, yes, it would be immoral for him to murder him.
Why was the evidence disallowed? The accused has rights, and it is a common and popular presumption that someone accused by the authorities is guilty. But, that's not justice, either.
The American philosophy in this regard is "innocent *unless* proven guilty". (only one bite at the apple, etc...)
So, legally, the father killed an innocent man. Morally, he *may* have killed an innocent man.
And while I didn't specify what kind of evidence was disallowed I did state that it absolutely proved his guilt. Let's imagine a bloody souvenir was disallowed due to no search warrant.
The set up is the same, leaving the moral dilemma not whether he killed an innocent but whether he had the right to kill a guilty one.
Also, as you're probably aware, in Objectivism morality is not subjective but OBJECTIVE, (hence the name) and can be universally applied.
You have to think through all the mitigating circumstances (I never said it'd be easy) but once you have done so - the same rule and judgment would apply anywhere from Joplin to Johannesburg.
What do you think?
With your help I think I've worked it out to my satisfaction.
Here goes...
Gail's core sin was holding the average man beneath contempt. (A flaw shared by many among us). Such a view allows one to commit virtually any atrocity. Wynand's "atrocity" was that he allowed Toohey to do what Toohey does. It's called DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE and it is an actionable offense. (He should have fired Toohey immediately upon realizing what he was.)
Toohy's action was not protected free speech. Fraudulent speech is not protected. (It is perfectly acceptable to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater if the theater is TRULY on fire. If it's not....)
Fraudulent? How so?
Here so: A Lie of Omission is still a lie. (You swear to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth, so help you...) The half-lies and innuendo, so commonly used by some, are deliberate attempts to skirt the law (or social norms). Legal perhaps, nevertheless it is still a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. Hence it is fraud and not morally protected.
As for the hierarchy of sin - that sins of speech don't warrant violent response - nonsense. A traitor who radios the battle plans to the enemy on the eve of action absolutely deserves a bullet to the head.
I agree that intent is all. Paul Krugman is protected because he simply disagrees. Toohey is not because he deliberately maligns uncaring of guilt or innocence.
Of course, at the very core, is the fact that the criticism is unwarranted.
It's one thing for Wynand to say "I'll make sure you never work in this town again!" if you are truly incompetent. It is quite another if you are not - and he knows it!
One last thing:
Objectivism is to me what the Standard Model is to a physicist. It is the foundation of my world view, but it must withstand every test of empirical observation. If it does not it must be tweaked or replaced.
At the end of the day - it still has to match reality.
In this case, the "given" to be explained is the fact that IS moral to destroy a man who has destroyed you without cause.
Happily, once again and with your help (thank you very much!) I have untangled my confused threads of reason and my Standard Model still stands strong.
Truth is, I have never found reason to alter a single word of Her body of work.
But I am ever aware that even Einstein was wrong about the quantum world.
So there we are!
Now, please, feel free to pint out any holes in my reasoning.
I CALL BS.
This is why I hope Holmes is smoking a turd in purgatory. It's perfectly alright to shout "fire" in a crowded theater that isn't on fire... provided no harm results. If nobody stampedes, if property isn't damaged, if the sum total result is a chorus of voices shouting, "shut the hell up, we're watching the movie!", or if nobody hears him because the volume of the movie is so loud that the audience will be deaf the rest of the night anyway (aka, "typical movie"), no harm, no foul.
Yet that one bad decision by Holmes (or, perhaps corrupt decision) has led to many horrific infringements on individual liberty ever since.
Is it OK to speak fraudulently if you get lucky and no harm is done?
To slander, perhaps, if no one is harmed?
Sounds a little like the small lies we often encounter in daily life.
Sometimes even, perhaps, careless words falling from our own lips.
I think I want to agree with you this time Hiraghm.
Free speech is so essential to life and liberty that any restriction must be only for the gravest of reasons.
Simple lies of no consequence - meh, let it go.
-- Anybody else?
(Note though this changes nothing about Toohey, since his speech WAS slanderous and DID cause harm.)
I don't know that one can fight the Billionaire with the paper and ink to smear him.
But, if the truth is the truth either way it (the truth) should/will come out. And if it's a lie, then hopefully the lie will be exposed.
But I think as when Rearden signed over his company to the Government, he let his sins (and moreso Dagney's and an effort to protect her) be used against him.
As Wellington said, "Publish and be damned" ,but I'll not submit to your blackmail or slander.
But if it's not true - and the truth doesn't come out - What then?
--
I don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand the "sins" you speak of from Reardon and Dagny.
"What recourse does an average Joe have against a billionaire with a newspaper?"-His mind and independent judgement. If the gun is an ultimate argument, then a billionaire will always win. He has better guns, better security and could hire the whole gang to kill you.
Well, yeah, OK.
My mind and independent judgment tells me I've been royally screwed by the slanderous attacks of a vicious old bastard who has more money than god and is above the law to a man like me.
Now what?
True, a billionaire could simply take out a contract on you, that's why you would strike first.
(Never underestimate what a man can do who is both intelligent and capable of violence.)
But all of this is beside the point. The gun is not my argument. I have no newspaper and I have no proof that will hold up in court. My argument is negated.
The gun is my response to that injustice.
I'm not a violent man. I'm not a gun nut, a conspiracy theorist or doomsday fanatic.
I'm actually one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet.
Hell, I believe that KINDNESS is one of the GREATEST virtues. (Not THE greatest, but one of.)
Few Objectivists spend much time on that one - though it violates no Objectivist principles.
But I insist upon my right not only to self-defense - but also to JUSTICE.
That right is derived from the very same thread of reason.
Thanks again, Big "S!"
(Can I call you, that - not too familiar I hope. I probably should have waited for you to call me "Big "Z".)
Sorry dude.