Debates
14 Jul 23
20 Jul 23
@wajoma said
I thoroughly agree with builders who go to homes and tear up their work when clients do not uphold their end of the deal, written or verbal. The intricacies of contract law, which runs to thousands of pages and has no doubt changed dozens of times and had hundreds of pages and clauses added to it since 'The Fountainhead' was published is not what is being discussed. It's like ...[text shortened]... re is, a waste of time.
You've googled "The Fountainhead" "criticism" and just copy/pasted stuff.
You've googled "The Fountainhead" "criticism" and just copy/pasted stuff.
That's the appropriate response to your googling Francisco's speech and copy pasting the address.
20 Jul 23
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidIf you read the book you'd know that the people that made the deal knew the terms of the deal.
Can he prove it?
That's usually your response to claims that property is unrightfully owned.
I guess proof is no longer necessary. Roark shows us that unilateral anarchism is the way to go. Not lawsuits, not calling the police. If you decide something is yours, no matter what the government documents say, go ahead and demolish it with dynamite out of spite. It's ok.
The goobermint documents are no guarantee of anything, the proof of the deal is there in the book, for the last time we're not discussing contract law, but a mans word, in fact the word of two men agreeing to something. Both knew the terms, both agreed to the terms. A mans word, which doesn't mean what it should anymore.
BTW it was not 'spite', something else you secondhanded from someone else's criticism? If you think that is what the reason is, go and paint your own starry night.
20 Jul 23
@athousandyoung saidI posted the speech, I didn't secondhand someone else's supposed criticism.You've googled "The Fountainhead" "criticism" and just copy/pasted stuff.
That's the appropriate response to your googling Francisco's speech and copy pasting the address.
Do you see the difference?
20 Jul 23
@athousandyoung saidAyn Rand's philosophy is fairly close to Libertarianism.
I don't know anyone who bases their knowledge of astronomy on Van Gogh. Sadly I meet people who base their morality on Ayn Rand all the time.
Both works of art are worth studying but neither is a functional guide to life. They are fascinating studies into the irrational minds of the artists.
I'd love to see your commentary on the details I pointed out but I suspect you never actually read the book.
Now, it's about this ---> "... the irrational minds of the artists". hmmmm
20 Jul 23
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidNo, there are dishonest people on both sides. Reread my post because I specifically stated 'when the client does not uphold their end of the deal'.
How do you know when clients don't uphold their end of the deal?
You just take the builders word for it?
I didn't say the builder should tear up his work when the client did uphold their end of the deal. This is infantile stuff you're trying to pull.
Obviously in these type of disputes there are two sides to the story. In the case of Roarke and Keating there are not two different accounts because you've read the only account with your own two eyes, which I now doubt because it doesn't look like you've read the book.
20 Jul 23
6 edits
@earl-of-trumps saidHow else do you explain someone who writes about a man who uses his allowance to monopolize an entire industry and then deliberately destroys it (in the process defrauding his investors) saying stuff like this:
Ayn Rand's philosophy is fairly close to Libertarianism.
Now, it's about this ---> "... the irrational minds of the artists". hmmmm
Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.
20 Jul 23
@earl-of-trumps saidRand had some mean things to say about Libertarians, because they're trying to take a short cut, as in you can't have the what i.e. 'Libertarianism' without the why i.e. 'Objectivism'. A POV that I agree with, however at 59 years old time is running out for at the very least putting on the brakes of ever growing goobermint, at 59 years old, it is time for shortcuts.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is fairly close to Libertarianism.
Now, it's about this ---> "... the irrational minds of the artists". hmmmm
20 Jul 23
@wajoma saidIn the real world Roark would go to prison for violating property rights and you would cheer the government on, saying stuff like "prison is the appropriate place for people who violate property rights to protect everyone else from them"
No, there are dishonest people on both sides. Reread my post because I specifically stated 'when the client does not uphold their end of the deal'.
I didn't say the builder should tear up his work when the client did uphold their end of the deal. This is infantile stuff you're trying to pull.
Obviously in these type of disputes there're are two sides to the stor ...[text shortened]... account with your own two eyes, which I now doubt because it doesn't look like you've read the book.
20 Jul 23
@athousandyoung saidThere was no monopoly. You've mis-characterized Francisco based on a satire by what's-his-name.
How else do you explain someone who writes about a man who uses his allowance to monopolize an entire industry and then deliberately destroys it saying stuff like this:
Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.
20 Jul 23
@athousandyoung saidI assume you are talking about Rand...?
How else do you explain someone who writes about a man who uses his allowance to monopolize an entire industry and then deliberately destroys it saying stuff like this:
Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.
Well, she is far from irrational. Cherry-picking a counter example won't ruin her legacy
20 Jul 23
1 edit
@wajoma said
There was no monopoly. You've mis-characterized Francisco based on a satire by what's-his-name.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/atlas-shrugged/summary-and-analysis/part-2-chapter-5
Summary and Analysis Part 2: Chapter 5
Summary
The United States has no more copper producers. d'Anconia Copper is the last producer on earth, but none of its ships can reach America because Ragnar Dannesjköld sinks them. Consequently, no more electric appliances are being manufactured in the United States.
Rearden Steel experiences the first failure in its history. Because he cannot get copper, Rearden can't deliver the Rearden Metal rail for Taggart Transcontinental's disintegrating mainline track.
20 Jul 23
@earl-of-trumps saidHer works are filled with such examples from Galt's impossible magic motor being the only way she could make her story work, to Roark's dynamiting of other peoples' property, to an heir lecturing us on not consuming more than you can produce while living off his allowance, to glorification of piracy...
I assume you are talking about Rand...?
Well, she is far from irrational. Cherry-picking a counter example won't ruin her legacy
20 Jul 23
@athousandyoung saidThere was nothing stopping anyone from discovering and mining there own copper reserves. If there were rather than cliff's notes you can quote the actual book where it says this.https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/atlas-shrugged/summary-and-analysis/part-2-chapter-5
Summary and Analysis Part 2: Chapter 5
Summary
The United States has no more copper producers. d'Anconia Copper is the last producer on earth, but none of its ships can reach America because Ragnar Dannesjköld sinks them. Consequently, no more electric appliances are being manufactured in the United States.
20 Jul 23
2 edits
@wajoma saidI guess you missed the part where Francisco was working with pirates to cut off copper supply to North America.
There was nothing stopping anyone from discovering and mining there own copper reserves. If there were rather than cliff's notes you can quote the actual book where it says this.
Well, that and the fact that it was illegal to discover and mine copper in the story...because Francisco had connections in Washington and he got those laws passed for the benefit of his copper company.
20 Jul 23
1 edit
https://archive.org/stream/AtlasShrugged/atlas%20shrugged_djvu.txt
He had held a conference with the producers of copper, who had just been
garroted by a set of directives that would put them out of existence in
another year. He had had no advice to give them, no solution to offer; his
ingenuity, which had made him famous as the man who would always find a way
to keep production going, had not been able to discover a way to save them.
But they had all known that there was no way; ingenuity was a virtue of the
mind— and in the issue confronting them, the mind had been discarded as
irrelevant long ago. "It's a deal between the boys in Washington and the
importers of copper," one of the men had said, "mainly d'Anconia Copper."
This was only a small, extraneous stab of pain, he thought, a feeling of
disappointment in an expectation he had never had the right to expect; he
should have known that this was just what a man like Francisco d'Anconia
would do—