Atlas Shrugged, Part 2 Chapter 7: The Moratorium On Brains

Posted by nsnelson 9 years, 3 months ago to Books
41 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Summary: Eddie Willers told John Galt where Dagny was staying. Rearden, walking home, was accosted by Ragnar Danneskjöld, who returned some of Rearden’s looted money in the form of a gold bar, and spoke of Robin Hood. Kip Chalmers, campaigning for California legislature, was riding the Comet with some friends when it broke down in Colorado on his way from Washington to San Francisco. They tried pulling it through the Taggart Tunnel, but crashed into the Army Freight Special, after Rand summarized the views of 16 passengers.

Start by reading the first-tier comments, which are all quotes of Ayn Rand (some of my favorites, some just important for other reasons). Comment on your favorite ones, or others' comments. Don't see your favorite quote? Post it in a new comment. Please reserve new comments for Ayn Rand, and your non-Rand quotes for "replies" to the quotes or discussion. (Otherwise Rand's quotes will get crowded out and pushed down into oblivion. You can help avoid this by "voting up" the Rand quotes, or at least the ones you especially like, and voting down first-tier comments that are not quotes of the featured book.)

Atlas Shrugged was written by Ayn Rand in 1957.

My idea for this post is discussed here:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
    Danneskjöld to Rearden: “It is said that he [Robin Hood] fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal. And this has brought us to a world where the more a man produces, the closer he comes to the loss of all his rights, until, if his ability is great enough, he becomes a rightless creature delivered as prey to any claimant – while in order to be placed above rights, above principles, above morality, placed where anything is permitted to him, even plunder and murder, all a man has to do is to be in need. Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
    Danneskjöld to Rearden: “I have seized every loot-carrier that came within range of my guns, every government relief ship, subsidy ship, loan ship, gift ship, every vessel with a cargo of goods taken by force from some men for the unpaid, unearned benefit of others. I seized the boats that sailed under the flag of the idea which I am fighting: the idea that need is a sacred idol requiring human sacrifices – that the need of some men is the knife of a guillotine hanging over others – that all of us must live with our work, our hopes, our plans, our efforts at the mercy of the moment when that knife will descend upon us – and that the extent of our ability is the extent of our danger, so that success will bring our heads down on the block, while failure will give us the right to pull the cord. This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
    Danneskjöld: “The purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is the proper function of a government.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
    Danneskjöld to Rearden: “I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live it.”
    “What man?”
    “Robin Hood.”
    Rearden looked at him blankly, not understanding.
    “He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I’m the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
      I found Danneskjöld a contemptible character. The gov't was starting to steal wholesale. That does not justify Danneskjöld's stealing. It's esp low that he mentions targeting the poor. We saw the gov't central planners making deals to move food from the midwest or oil from Colorado for political reasons, making their friends rich and making most citizens' poor. So clearly it's not as simple as all the poor in the story got their stuff by stealing and the rich got their wealth honestly. Most thieves, though, have a rationalized story of how they're actaully the good guys.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 3 months ago
        The "thieving poor" were powerful people that had not earned anything.

        You found Ragnar contemptible for taking back that which the 'entitled poor' had stolen from producers? How consistent, to the theme of the novel, is the idea that one of the heroes is a thief that rationalizes he's a good guy while targeting poor people? Could you be missing something?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
        Fair enough. Remember that he is not targeting all the poor, not the poor just because they are poor. He is targeting the poor who are moochers, especially the looters they vote in who forcefully take from the producers. Legal plunder is still plunder, and Ragnar sees it as warrant for violent resistance, probably justified as self-defense. It may be a stretch, but I see where he is coming from. In part 3, he acknowledges that his way of joining the Strike is controversial, not everyone will agree. But he saw it as a giant reductio ad absurdum in action. They believe in the use of force to take what they want? He used force and the mind, and did it better.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
          I understood the part about violent resistance, and the need to resist however he can. He's executing the Declaration of Independence, trying to fight a long train of abuses.

          "They believe in the use of force to take what they want? He used force and the mind, and did it better."
          This seems like the tu quoque argument. To me he came off this way, as a thief using tu quoque has his rationalization. Conscious1982 had a good point, though, that maybe stealing from the "poor" meant those specific people behind the theft, not just people with low wealth or income. In this case, he's using force in self-defense.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
            Agreed, tu quoque is fallacious. And even the self-defense argument is weak. Defending your self (and property) in the moment is warranted. But after the fact? In the VOS, The Nature of Government, she talks about "renouncing the use of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement." In other words, it is unacceptable to have a bunch of violent vigilantes running around exercising vengeance, or their own imperfect view of self-defense justice. Let the police and the courts work it out according to objective law. But ultimately, in the absence of that objective law, Ragnar had to work it out on his own.

            In P3C2, Ragnar admits that Galt and Akston disagree with his approach because it was too risky, though Galt said that Ragnar was morally justified. I suspect that even Ayn Rand was torn on this point, and not necessarily holding Ragnar up as an example for others to emulate. I think it was more about her using Ragnar to make a literary point, just another way to highlight the absurd logical conclusion of the Code of Death. As Ragnar says in this same conversation: "I am merely complying with the system which my fellow men have established. If they believe that force is the proper means to deal with one another, I am giving them what they ask for."

            [Edited to remove a link that didn't work.]
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 2 months ago
              The only non-fiction Rand I've read was parts of VoS. This makes me want to read it cover-to-cover, as I did AS and Fountainhead. When I read this I thought, "of course the state must have a monopoly of use of force", but then I thought why is that true? I need to learn more theory about this.

              You quote Ragnar saying, "I am giving them what they ask for." I would have told him to please stop doing that.

              It occurs to me that this is the point of the book. Dagny was determined to ignore the politics and just get things done. Ragnar was at the other end of the radicalization spectrum. Maybe Dagny and Ragnar could have talked about this topic, but it would have been academic if the gov't had been less intrusive. They started using force, which necessitatest the discussion "how doe we deal with a group initiating force.".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
    Danneskjöld: “Look more carefully, Mr. Rearden. There are only two modes of living left to us today: to be a looter who robs disarmed victims or to be a victim who works for the benefit of his own despoilers. I did not choose to be either.”
    “You chose to live by means of force, like the rest of them.”
    “Yes – openly. Honestly, if you will…Why should you be surprised, Mr. Rearden? I am merely complying with the system which my fellow men have established. If they believe that force is the proper means to deal with one another, I am giving them what they ask for.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
    “He [Rearden] carried a gun in his pocket, as advised by the policemen of the radio car that patrolled the roads; they had warned him that no road was safe after dark, these days.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo