Objectivist Bad Guys? Part 2
Posted by Zero 10 years, 11 months ago to Entertainment
Totally different from THIEF, but finally a "bad" guy who goes all the way - a true Objectivist.
I love this movie, one of my very favorites. I find no flaw in any of the major players! And finally a fair shake to businessman! Even a non-loathsome lawyer! Its got it all.
One interesting side note: this movie would seem to challenge Rand's assertion that rational men with proper values would not be in conflict.
While I still hold with canon, I find it interesting how our personal "worlds" can make good people adversaries who might otherwise be best of friends.
(Please note I said "canon" not dogma. One of the great differences between Objectivism and religion is the absence of dogmatic belief.)
Have you seen it? What did you think?
(Available on Netflix and...?)
I love this movie, one of my very favorites. I find no flaw in any of the major players! And finally a fair shake to businessman! Even a non-loathsome lawyer! Its got it all.
One interesting side note: this movie would seem to challenge Rand's assertion that rational men with proper values would not be in conflict.
While I still hold with canon, I find it interesting how our personal "worlds" can make good people adversaries who might otherwise be best of friends.
(Please note I said "canon" not dogma. One of the great differences between Objectivism and religion is the absence of dogmatic belief.)
Have you seen it? What did you think?
(Available on Netflix and...?)
SOURCE URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMNOgmIDle8
but the guy running the company, many of these people do not create real new value either. Think of Jeffrey Immelt of GE-he has no idea how to create 1 job. His answer is govt influence and favoritism, and like his other Fortune 500 CEO comrades, he has risen to the position much like a politician in Washington.
The story presents two competing thought processes which are ultimately a false narrative.
The real narrative is that REAL increases in per capita wealth happen by creating NEW technologies and disseminating those technologies and products thereof. In a true free market, although people would lose their jobs at this company, their opportunities would be huge-so huge in fact, that unless you were the founder, the likelihood you stayed with just this company your whole career, would make no sense. So-the idea that "this company has survived two world wars and a depression" is romantic only to the founding owners-likely not in the hearts of the unskilled or skilled workers unless there is something of value more intrinsic than longevity or unless this company has been inventive enough to keep up with other inventive competition.
caveat: the longest lasting industries are food companies-which are not disruptive and new technologies do not have significant effects on their business outside of costs. Think about the new coke formulation..
(First place, it wouldn't have been her to come up with the airbag alternative; and said alternative would have required investing in retooling...)
When she told him to tell his generative organ to behave itself in the presence of a lady, I would have replied, "What lady? All I see here is a lawyer. You don't like the way I talk, in my office... there's the door. Have a nice day." And turned away from her.
No. I am with "Larry the Liquidator" on this. He is a hero. Gregory Peck as "Jorgy" Jorgeson is the traditionalist conservative who cannot embrace change and profit from it.
Jorgy's Speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uundu-aP...
Larry the Liquidator's response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZ...
But I don't fault Jorgy much. He was a good man running an honest business.