Galt et al are the victims of parasites dragging their physical and spiritual equity (the virtue of productivity) in life toward zero.
You're talking about the book as if it's central conceits make sense in the real world. That's like arguing whether Gandalf made the right decision in taking the path through Moria in The Lord of the Rings. The latter argument might be interesting but the former is not, because Tolkien's book wasn't meant to apply to the real world whereas Rand's was.
Her model might be self-consistent, but it breaks down in the face of reality.
Physical force is the only enemy of freedom (volition).
For sake of argument, I'll accept that. But so what. There's no such thing as absolute freedom ("Your right to swing your arm stops at my nose.) Again, Rand wants to change reality in order that reality fits her theory.
Francisco owned the mines and destroying them diminished no value owned by others.
Sophistry. Francisco destroyed access,/i> to the mines (which, again, only works in Rand's mind because the world was made of nothing but "zeros"). Destroying access to the copper he did not produce denied others the possibility of others' creating value, according to Rand's own terms.
Vandalism is the destruction of a value owned by someone else. I know of no such instance in the book.
That's because we disagree on the definition of "ownership".
You did that here:
"That she further goes on to dismiss feeling as a legitimate form of knowing the world also appeals to a materialist like myself."
To be pedantic, note that I said it "appeals to me, not that it's true.
But in any case, I'll withdraw that and say instead, feeling is a legitimate way of knowing the world, but it is not of much use in analyzing it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Two-Parter A-Comin'
Date: 2008-09-23 06:11 pm (UTC)You're talking about the book as if it's central conceits make sense in the real world. That's like arguing whether Gandalf made the right decision in taking the path through Moria in The Lord of the Rings. The latter argument might be interesting but the former is not, because Tolkien's book wasn't meant to apply to the real world whereas Rand's was.
Her model might be self-consistent, but it breaks down in the face of reality.
Physical force is the only enemy of freedom (volition).
For sake of argument, I'll accept that. But so what. There's no such thing as absolute freedom ("Your right to swing your arm stops at my nose.) Again, Rand wants to change reality in order that reality fits her theory.
Francisco owned the mines and destroying them diminished no value owned by others.
Sophistry. Francisco destroyed access,/i> to the mines (which, again, only works in Rand's mind because the world was made of nothing but "zeros"). Destroying access to the copper he did not produce denied others the possibility of others' creating value, according to Rand's own terms.
Vandalism is the destruction of a value owned by someone else. I know of no such instance in the book.
That's because we disagree on the definition of "ownership".
You did that here:
"That she further goes on to dismiss feeling as a legitimate form of knowing the world also appeals to a materialist like myself."
To be pedantic, note that I said it "appeals to me, not that it's true.
But in any case, I'll withdraw that and say instead, feeling is a legitimate way of knowing the world, but it is not of much use in analyzing it.