• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Anyone read the Fountainhead

Status
Not open for further replies.
If for no other reason, to find out for yourself if it's as good/bad as said and to come to your own conclusions.

I'm growing increasingly tempted.

But I gotta ask; why is there no middle ground between capitalism and collectivism? I don't think the majority of people against unregulated capitalism want the pro-capitalists to be poor, yet that's how they're described here. Is that how the Rand books describe them (me)?

I think most people against unregulated capitalism just want some fairness. I don't care if someone (say a CEO of a health insurance company) can make $100 million a year as long as the lowest wage earners can afford insurance or aren't relying on SNAP benefits or other subsidies to survive.

I think it's a common mis-belief and rather knee-jerk to think that by "fairness" it means "everybody be poor". Those aren't the only two choices. If that's how Rand describes her characters, I'm already turned off.
 
And I'm all for creating a foundation who's sole.purpose is for guilty rich far lefties to put their money where their mouth is and help them.liquidate their assets towards charity quicker.
How DARE they take a pro collectivist stance and live in a nice house and drive a nice car?
BTW my foundation will accept property from poor collectivist folk as well. If you preach it, you should live it.
Right?
I like the way you took the discussion from skirting political topics to outright attacking political groups. Well played.
 
I'm growing increasingly tempted.

But I gotta ask; why is there no middle ground between capitalism and collectivism? I don't think the majority of people against unregulated capitalism want the pro-capitalists to be poor, yet that's how they're described here. Is that how the Rand books describe them (me)?
According to my reading of Atlas Shrugged, Rand doesn't seek a middle ground.

I think most people against unregulated capitalism just want some fairness. I don't care if someone (say a CEO of a health insurance company) can make $100 million a year as long as the lowest wage earners can afford insurance or aren't relying on SNAP benefits or other subsidies to survive.
Under totally unregulated capitalism, there would be no CEO of a health insurance company making $100 million a year. An economy needs some regulation in order to function above bare subsistence.

I think it's a common mis-belief and rather knee-jerk to think that by "fairness" it means "everybody be poor". Those aren't the only two choices. If that's how Rand describes her characters, I'm already turned off.
Both sides -- individualism and collectivism -- claim to seek fairness. Either of them, if carried to a utopian extreme, produces "everybody be poor." At least, that's my view.
 
I'm growing increasingly tempted.

But I gotta ask; why is there no middle ground between capitalism and collectivism? I don't think the majority of people against unregulated capitalism want the pro-capitalists to be poor, yet that's how they're described here. Is that how the Rand books describe them (me)?

I think most people against unregulated capitalism just want some fairness. I don't care if someone (say a CEO of a health insurance company) can make $100 million a year as long as the lowest wage earners can afford insurance or aren't relying on SNAP benefits or other subsidies to survive.

I think it's a common mis-belief and rather knee-jerk to think that by "fairness" it means "everybody be poor". Those aren't the only two choices. If that's how Rand describes her characters, I'm already turned off.

I think the middle ground is lacking because so many have been trained that compromise is bad. To some, 'fairness' means they get to tell others how much to give to others and to a different group, 'fair' means they get to keep what they worked for and they can decide for themselves how much to give, and to whom. To the first group, they say they don't have a problem with the government taking from them, so others can have more and some even want those with less to have as much as others, without requiring them to do more for themselves, as a way to climb out of their current level in life. Some feel that those who can't do for themselves should be helped, but when someone decides that they'd rather do as little as possible, they need a reality check and an end to their benefits.

This is obviously just a small list of what people argue about, but another list has to do with the extent to which government should involve itself in peoples' lives. Some say they don't mind and others want the minimum from the Federal government, while accepting a bit more on the local level. Some have the finances to afford to want the government to leave them alone, completely, while others have absolutely nothing.

In the middle, is a group that would like to see the government stop wasting money on all kinds of pet projects, want to see members of Congress act like they give a rat's butt about what they're doing to most of the citizens of this country and want to see people treat each other with respect, rather than resort to all of the name-calling that I have seen over the years.

When I was a kid, my dad would ask "This is the best we have?" when election time rolled around. I thought he was being negative at the time, but now, I think he was just frustrated by the depths to which government had slid. I can't imagine what he'd think now.

Honestly, I think the number of people who truly want unregulated ANYTHING would hate it if they had it and I don't think that's what they really want. I think they actually want less regulation of THEM, but the rest can be as regulated as necessary unless they stand to find themselves in the position of those others at some point. De-regulation doesn't always work and the cable TV industry is a shining example of this.

If you have read about any of the utopians, I always find it interesting that none of those who designed them wanted to be one of those who lived in that way. Pullman (as in the luxurious railroad cars) is a prime example and he started communities in several locations. None of them worked. He had ideas for other people (generally, his employees) that they didn't share and when they realized what he was trying to do, they revolted.

The thing about provocative books like Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead is that so many people read things they strongly disagree with and then hate the whole book, rather than reading the whole and reaching their conclusions later. It's possible to come away from reading it and finding that some of it resonates positively, yet other parts cause the reader to find the author a totally abhorrent person. Plus, there's nothing that says we have to agree or disagree with anything.

Personally, if I had experienced what she did before leaving Russia, I'd hate collectivism, too. I know someone from Ukraine and he DOES NOT like what's happening here, in the US.
 
I think the middle ground is lacking because so many have been trained that compromise is bad. To some, 'fairness' means they get to tell others how much to give to others and to a different group, 'fair' means they get to keep what they worked for and they can decide for themselves how much to give, and to whom. To the first group, they say they don't have a problem with the government taking from them, so others can have more and some even want those with less to have as much as others, without requiring them to do more for themselves, as a way to climb out of their current level in life. Some feel that those who can't do for themselves should be helped, but when someone decides that they'd rather do as little as possible, they need a reality check and an end to their benefits.

This is obviously just a small list of what people argue about, but another list has to do with the extent to which government should involve itself in peoples' lives. Some say they don't mind and others want the minimum from the Federal government, while accepting a bit more on the local level. Some have the finances to afford to want the government to leave them alone, completely, while others have absolutely nothing.

In the middle, is a group that would like to see the government stop wasting money on all kinds of pet projects, want to see members of Congress act like they give a rat's butt about what they're doing to most of the citizens of this country and want to see people treat each other with respect, rather than resort to all of the name-calling that I have seen over the years.

When I was a kid, my dad would ask "This is the best we have?" when election time rolled around. I thought he was being negative at the time, but now, I think he was just frustrated by the depths to which government had slid. I can't imagine what he'd think now.

That's funny. I like to think I am at the top of this bell curve of reasonable viewpoints and I don't recall seeing you immediately next to me. There is gerrymandering of the reasonable middle ground somewhere! I certainly don't feel unreasonable.:|
 
I'm growing increasingly tempted.

But I gotta ask; why is there no middle ground between capitalism and collectivism?

Because what collectivists, Marxists, communists, socialists (or whatever they're calling themselves now) don't understand, and never will understand, is that pure capitalism lifts everyone up, while collectivism drags everyone down. Do you know why we have welfare? Because someone dreamed it up and thought it would be a great idea without realizing that that there are gobs of people out there who would rather live on free crumbs than work for the whole pie.
 
Because what collectivists, Marxists, communists, socialists (or whatever they're calling themselves now) don't understand, and never will understand, is that pure capitalism lifts everyone up, while collectivism drags everyone down. Do you know why we have welfare? Because someone dreamed it up and thought it would be a great idea without realizing that that there are gobs of people out there who would rather live on free crumbs than work for the whole pie.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Because what collectivists, Marxists, communists, socialists (or whatever they're calling themselves now) don't understand, and never will understand, is that pure capitalism lifts everyone up, while collectivism drags everyone down. Do you know why we have welfare? Because someone dreamed it up and thought it would be a great idea without realizing that that there are gobs of people out there who would rather live on free crumbs than work for the whole pie.

In my view, "pure" capitalism, if it can even be defined at all, is likely to be as unworkable as pure collectivism. Utopianism fails.
 
I think the middle ground is lacking because so many have been trained that compromise is bad. To some, 'fairness' means they get to tell others how much to give to others and to a different group, 'fair' means they get to keep what they worked for and they can decide for themselves how much to give, and to whom. To the first group, they say they don't have a problem with the government taking from them, so others can have more and some even want those with less to have as much as others, without requiring them to do more for themselves, as a way to climb out of their current level in life. Some feel that those who can't do for themselves should be helped, but when someone decides that they'd rather do as little as possible, they need a reality check and an end to their benefits.

This is obviously just a small list of what people argue about, but another list has to do with the extent to which government should involve itself in peoples' lives. Some say they don't mind and others want the minimum from the Federal government, while accepting a bit more on the local level. Some have the finances to afford to want the government to leave them alone, completely, while others have absolutely nothing.

In the middle, is a group that would like to see the government stop wasting money on all kinds of pet projects, want to see members of Congress act like they give a rat's butt about what they're doing to most of the citizens of this country and want to see people treat each other with respect, rather than resort to all of the name-calling that I have seen over the years.

When I was a kid, my dad would ask "This is the best we have?" when election time rolled around. I thought he was being negative at the time, but now, I think he was just frustrated by the depths to which government had slid. I can't imagine what he'd think now.

Honestly, I think the number of people who truly want unregulated ANYTHING would hate it if they had it and I don't think that's what they really want. I think they actually want less regulation of THEM, but the rest can be as regulated as necessary unless they stand to find themselves in the position of those others at some point. De-regulation doesn't always work and the cable TV industry is a shining example of this.

If you have read about any of the utopians, I always find it interesting that none of those who designed them wanted to be one of those who lived in that way. Pullman (as in the luxurious railroad cars) is a prime example and he started communities in several locations. None of them worked. He had ideas for other people (generally, his employees) that they didn't share and when they realized what he was trying to do, they revolted.

The thing about provocative books like Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead is that so many people read things they strongly disagree with and then hate the whole book, rather than reading the whole and reaching their conclusions later. It's possible to come away from reading it and finding that some of it resonates positively, yet other parts cause the reader to find the author a totally abhorrent person. Plus, there's nothing that says we have to agree or disagree with anything.

Personally, if I had experienced what she did before leaving Russia, I'd hate collectivism, too. I know someone from Ukraine and he DOES NOT like what's happening here, in the US.

TL;DR:D

Just kidding. Thanks for the well-stated explanation. If I were to read one of her books, I'd be able to get past the parts that bother me and judge the book as a whole. I get past it here anyway.


Because what collectivists, Marxists, communists, socialists (or whatever they're calling themselves now) don't understand, and never will understand, is that pure capitalism lifts everyone up, while collectivism drags everyone down. Do you know why we have welfare? Because someone dreamed it up and thought it would be a great idea without realizing that that there are gobs of people out there who would rather live on free crumbs than work for the whole pie.

I think part of the problem is that the "gobs" you refer to amount to less than 2% of recipients and when a small number is falsely turned into a larger number for the sake of enraging people, it invalidates the argument. To me, anyway.

BTW, a lot of people (sometimes described as "on the dole" or "on handouts") would really rather be working. I've been on SSD for three years after being injured bad enough that I'll never work again. I'd trade places with just about ANY working stiff out there if I was actually able to do anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.