I've recently found myself hit in the head with the flying WTF hammer. The pure absurdity of life in these times has staggered me again. It's probably my own fault for only half paying attention to what's going on out there that I get snuck up on by these things. But really, I never expected the writings of Ayn Rand to suddenly become all the buzz in mainstream media and politics. Much less did I expect the lengthy "Atlas Shrugged" to suddenly be hoisted as some sort of weird new banner of privileged republicans in this country.
I've read it, twice in fact, though it's been a long time. I read it when I was young and idealistic, and yeah, I loved it. By the time I read it I'd already read a handful of Rand's other books, Anthem, We The Living, The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged is certainly the pinnacle of Rand's works, and certainly espouses lofty ideals and philosophies, but is it really applicable or appropriate to these times and the current economic state of things?
More than that, is it really applicable and appropriate for the folks hollering about it's tenets to be doing so? I started hearing about it and was both dumbfounded and outraged. Here was what I considered a great piece of literature I remember fondly from my idealistic youth, being hoisted in support of views and ideals I can not rationally support. Here are people saying this books means things I never thought it meant. Well, maybe I just didn't get it.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. I've had experience in the past with finding groups online where Rand readers gathered, or Objectivists, or whatever and I had already been surprised and annoyed to find that all-in-all it was mostly full of Republicans and Conservatives. I shrugged and left. I didn't bother jumping into the midst of people so set in their ways and saying "I don't think that means what you think it means." I didn't forsee a lively but pleasant debate coming out of that.
So who is John Galt, why are rich republicans adopting him as their mascot, and why is that totally ridiculous?
John Galt, as a character in Rand's Atlas Shrugged, was the son of a garage mechanic in Ohio. He left home at twelve and went to college at sixteen. At college he met some of the other important figures in the novel, all of whom double majored in physics and philosophy.
Do you see any big parallels between most rich republicans and John Galt yet? No, me either. Though now that I look at it, I realize I was born the son of a garage mechanic, but I didn't start college until 2 weeks after I turned 17, and while I've read a lot of physics and philosophy, my degree was in Audio Production. Still, I oddly may have more in common with John Galt's background than most of those folks threatening to "Go Galt" out there.
Anyway, John Galt invented an engine that was powered by ambient static electricity or somesuch. I don't remember all the details, but it certainly sounds like clean, renewable, green, "alternative" energy to me!
Yet most of the republicans scoff at Obama's energy policies and push towards renewable energy. To hell with innovation, "Drill baby, Drill." In fact, in a little instance of total irony, I found that the person who has currently laid claim to www.whoisjohngalt.com and who actually posts under the name "John Galt" talks quite a bit of smack about the idea of creating jobs by creating a new alternative energy economy. I laughed, a lot. This guy posts as John Galt, but thinks we should continue relying on fossil fuels. Apparently he forgot that whole essential part of "Going Galt" where all the visionaries removed themselves to go live in a hidden valley that was able to exist off the grid due to Galt's alternative energy source. Hmmmm....
Anyway, the gist of Galt & Co.'s protests against the world was that the existing socio-political system was basically set up to where it rewarded mediocrity and such at the expense of the true visionaries, creative geniuses, and industry masterminds. So all the folks who had done really wonderful things and not gotten their due for it quit and left society behind. "We don't need you." They removed their skills and refused to benefit a society of "moochers and looters".
Now, today, we have all these folks taking up the Galt flag in protestation of Obama's tax increase on folks with incomes over $250,000. They say that they are being ripped off, that they are being punished for their hard work and success, that everyone else is mooching and looting off them. So basically they are saying THEY are the visionaries, innovators, etc in the story. That's really the key point to their argument, that they are using this novel as an analogy for the proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy while not increasing them on the people who think that a quarter million dollars a year would probably allow most people to live in relative ease.
The big PROBLEM with the analogy is... well, I should probably say the problems ARE, as I hardly know where to start. The problem with the analogy is that it disregards so many things, and draws parallels from the most insignificant aspects of the story. The analogy depends on everyone using logic that really isn't sound. Basically, we're asked to take it as a solid FACT, indisputable, that people who have lots of money have it because they WORKED harder than the people who don't have lots of money. That's their key argument really. "We are rich, so obviously we are successful, so obviously we worked harder than everyone else and asking us to pay a larger fraction of our wealth in taxes is punishing us for working harder than everyone else."
Anyone see any problems with this logic? Well, I do. The key one being an essential component of the whole Atlas Shrugged theme. That we don't live in a society where there is any direct relationship between how hard you work and how much money you get in return. That's big issue number one right there. Both because these people are asking us to believe that they have all the money because they worked for it, and are trying to use John Galt as their poster boy, when John Galt was pushing for a society where people DID get paid in relation to their work and contribution. So neither the logic of their argument, nor the tenets of their poster boy really back up their stand in any way.
My guess is that most of these people never actually read Atlas Shrugged, at best, they may have flipped through to the steamy parts.
Anyway, when I look at all the people hollering and waving this book around and try to make actual parallels between them and characters or contingents in the book, it quickly becomes clear to me, despite them hollering that because they make over $250,000 a year that they are the innovators and heroes, that they really pretty closely parallel the moochers and looters shown in the story. I don't see innovators. I don't see what great contribution these people make to our society. I see a lot of privileged idiots who can't make a rational argument that's based on fact to save their life.
I think beneath it all, these people aren't so much scared of their taxes raising as they are of a shift in the socio-economic system that would no longer allow them to mooch off the system and loot the people who are really contributing, actually doing the work.
Seriously, do you think the new University of Oregon baseball coach who is being paid $400,000 a year works harder than a coal miner? Or a public high school teacher? Or a trash collector? Really? Is he making such a great contribution that the foundations of our society would quake if he removed his skills and talents?
And all talking heads on TV? Do we really need them? I know THEY think they are pretty important, but really...
The best thing about this whole thing, the most absurdly amazing thing about this is that for the most part, the people screaming and hollering about "Going Galt" and how they are being punished for their hard work, and how they should be rewarded instead, are the folks who are in complete support of the government bailouts put forward by Bush & Pals. The bailout that was oh so necessary. The bailout that was a matter of absolute NEED. And why did we need that bailout? Because a bunch of big corporations with very highly paid folks running them, completely FAILED. That's right, they didn't do their jobs well, despite being paid huge sums of money. They sucked, and their companies should have gone under. But instead they got paid off for their mediocrity, for their inability to run a profitable business. Weird isn't it, how while that goes against absolutely everything that John Galt stood for, and was a prime example of everything he stood against... the same folks who supported it, are now trying to use Galt as their posterboy.
With hypocrisy that staggering, I can only assume either they are stupid, or they think most of us are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"people who have lots of money have it because they WORKED harder than the people who don't have lots of money. That's their key argument really."
No, that's not really the argument. People who earn lots of money earn it because they do things that are valued by other people. Whether those things are work is highly subjective -- and completely irrelevant.
Government is constituted because when people do these things of value, work or not, they expect to keep the reward. And because sometimes society needs help assuring that all of the costs of a transaction are borne by its participants, and not being shifted onto innocent third parties.
People who don't earn lots of money are doing things that are valued less. And while it's convenient to ask the government to correct the "injustice" of their contribution being less valuable, it's also dishonest -- and counterproductive, especially compared to simply seeking to increase the value of their own contribution.
Everyone who wants a bigger piece of the pie is always free to make a bigger contribution. Your boss has a boss of his own, as does every well-paid person. If you feel someone is "overpaid" then you are always free to present a better offer to his employer, appeal to that employer's own sense of value, and secure the work for yourself. We'd all come out ahead.
When you get laughed out onto your ass you will be forced to admit what you already know: that "the overpaid" are only overpaid because we cannot all see the value of what they do -- not because it isn't actually worth it. To those who are buying the service, the price is quite fair after all. And that is why the arrangement is nobody's business but theirs.
Shifting productive resources to politically-motivated causes comes at the expense of whatever value those resources would otherwise produce. You can move engineering resources into alternative energy, for example, but only by denying those resources to efforts society would willingly pay for without the government's prodding. You can't see the loss because we don't get to travel down both paths, but each path comes with its own cost.
You've read Atlas Shrugged, now read some Bastiat: If government has to make people produce alternative energy sources, then there will have to be cutbacks in something society would actually like to buy.
Finally, it's funny to see reasoning along the lines that since John Galt is an electrical engineer therefore he of all people should appreciate the need for government to coerce people to pay for alternative energy sources.
You don't think Galt would find that just a little inconsistent with his motto?
*Shrug* You're well spoken Mr. "Galt". But I'm not really seeing much of a point being made here that would stand up in the reality of our modern situation.
I absolutely do not believe that people earn more money because the things they do are more valued by other people. That would be nice if it were true, but it really isn't.
There has been a gigantic class gap for so much of history, and the denizens of the upper class, having so much more money than the majority of people, have the ability to leverage markets and people for their own profit. They have the ability to name their own price.
The "value" of what they do is also somewhat arbitrarily created within their own system. It's not like the people, as a whole, value what they do to that extent. I suppose if you're an exec, or a board member of a large corporation, you have a different perspective of who the people are and what they value. But I'm guessing that the majority of people actually value the people doing the work and creating their goods or providing their services more than they do the execs making the profits by holding down wages and pushing up prices on goods and services.
One of the fundamental differences between Atlas Shrugged and reality is that Taggert, Rearden, etc. valued their workers for the work they did. They valued themselves for real contributions, but didn't view their workforce as expendables to be sucked dry.
And while it's convenient to say "Everyone who wants a bigger piece of the pie is always free to make a bigger contribution." That's just the same standard "We have the money because we work harder than you" reiterated in different words.
And it's nonsense still.
I don't believe you are ignorant enough to truly believe that our society and economy are structured such that anyone and everyone has the opportunity to "make a bigger contribution".
Some people have the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands to millions each year, and many more people don't. That's it, that's the fact of the matter.
I'm not saying we should take away the millions from those who have the opportunity, though I don't think they should be given enormous tax breaks either. They have enough opportunities not available to others because of their buying power.
But I do think it should be recognized that the idea that anyone and everyone has the same opportunity to contribute and be highly compensated, or to work hard enough to make millions, however you want to put it, is not a reality.
A wonderful ideal, definitely, a current reality, not even close.
As for alternative energy and shifting resources, again you seem to have some idealistic view on the structure of our government and economy. I'm not sure exactly what resources you think are going to be squandered from where to build an alternative energy infrastructure.
Personally alternative energy and most things "green" in nature seem highly appealing for their "win win" nature.
When I buy a compact fluorescent light bulb I end up saving energy and buying fewer light bulbs. I save money on electricity, save money on light bulbs, and don't have to climb up and replace them anywhere near as often, much less throw as much trash, thus resources, into the landfill.
I guess I don't think anyone should be forced into producing alternative energy. Mostly because it seems like a no brainer that it's a good idea. We can't rely on oil forever. We all know that.
Call me an idealist, but I see the potential for building an alternative energy economy as this nation's chance to once again be innovative and to lead the world. To create jobs, to create something of some real value to everyone while solving some of the real challenges of both today and tomorrow.
So in that regard, alternative energy is something that I, and probably a lot of society, would like to buy. And I'm sure there are plenty of resources that could be cut from things we don't like to buy. Like bailing out failures who already profited on their mistakes.
If John Galt where here today with his ambient static electricity generator he would be heralded as a visionary, and surely well rewarded for a contribution the value of which could hardly be measured.
Because you see, we don't live in the world of Atlas Shrugged. We don't have a John Galt. Those who take on his name are cheap imitations. We don't have profound visionaries held back by being in companies that have decided to pay people based on need instead of worth.
It's much more likely we have visionaries held back by the false idea that anyone can have anything if they just work hard enough, or, as you put it "make a bigger contribution."
We don't really have many garage mechanic's sons who really get the opportunity to attend prestigious universities and double major in physics and philosophy like Galt & pals did. It might happen once in a while, but it generally takes a strange string of opportunity and coincidence. It's not a guarantee that if you put in the work, you'll reap the reward.
We have a profoundly interesting socio-economic organism. People get rewarded for some pretty bizarre and random things. Look at our reality tv shows, look at the economy of the web, look at youtube. It's pretty cool in a lot of ways, but I still hold that while we all have the leisure to be distracted by all the weird and amusing things out there, the foundations of our lifestyle still rest on by and large underpaid people doing the brunt of the work.
I still urge the wealthy who feel they are being unfairly taxed to go ahead and "Go Galt." I still believe fully that if we could explore two paths we'd all be able to shrug at their strike, whereas if the workers of the world didn't show up for work for a single day, all hell would break loose and the whining rich would tear their hair out, since their wealth depends entirely on the working class.
There has been a gigantic class gap for so much of history, and the denizens of the upper class, having so much more money than the majority of people, have the ability to leverage markets and people for their own profit. They have the ability to name their own price.
To the extent that this rings true, it is also true that there is no rule that keeps any individual in or out of any class. And in fact, throughout our lifetimes we each experience class mobility. Try not to confuse that with the corruption of a social structure where the poor are condemned to second-class status their whole lives. There's no such barrier here.
And do you propose to improve something by bestowing privilege on the people who get the most votes instead of the people who earn the most money? Do you honestly think that's better? What sort of advantage does society get from someone who can glean the most votes from welfare recipients, felons and dead people? You can get mental incompetents to vote for just about anything -- but that doesn't mean you can deliver it.
And while it's convenient to say "Everyone who wants a bigger piece of the pie is always free to make a bigger contribution." That's just the same standard "We have the money because we work harder than you" reiterated in different words.
No, it means anyone can find a way to increase the value of his contribution -- as they should, because the goal is productivity, not work.
I don't believe you are ignorant enough to truly believe that our society and economy are structured such that anyone and everyone has the opportunity to "make a bigger contribution".
No, I don't believe that at all. A person can ultimately find himself limited by decisions that he has already made, and which cannot be undone. Usually an obligation like a marriage, a child or a debt, or sometimes a criminal past. These decisions do limit our ability to increase the value of our contribution, and overcoming them is undoubtedly harder than just voting for someone to "equalize" things.
We don't really have many garage mechanic's sons who really get the opportunity to attend prestigious universities and double major in physics and philosophy like Galt & pals did. It might happen once in a while, but it generally takes a strange string of opportunity and coincidence. It's not a guarantee that if you put in the work, you'll reap the reward.
Ever heard of an "academic scholarship"? There are smart kids paying next-to-nothing in every ivy league school, and paying even less than that in a nationwide network of prestigious state schools. Though I'll admit there are plenty of disappointing liberal parents who aren't bringing up their kids to apply themselves and qualify for those scholarships -- so perhaps you should raise their taxes, and use the tax code to send a meaningful message for a change.
Do you honestly think you can find a person who has made all the right decisions and "just can't get ahead"? Hogwash. You could put up any example, and I'd be happy to point out the dozens of poor choices in their past for which that individual is paying today -- but we both know that you don't need me to show them to you. You could do it yourself. You already know the mistakes you've made in your own life -- why would anyone else's be different? What you really want is for those foolish decisions to be forgiven, and I can't help you with that. Beside, what sort of message would that send to the people who resisted all the temptations and made the right sacrifices so that their jobs wouldn't have to be "work"?
I'm not sure exactly what resources you think are going to be squandered from where to build an alternative energy infrastructure.
I already said before that we only get to travel down one road, and so we never get a look down the other. But whatever you have society focus its attention on, something else will end up being neglected -- there's no telling what might have been (but won't ever be) as a result of the bargain. It's called "opportunity costs" -- look it up for yourself.
Personally alternative energy and most things "green" in nature seem highly appealing for their "win win" nature.
Where's the "win win" when ethanol insanity drives up the price of foods? It's not like we can eat the oil that is saved, you know.
I guess I don't think anyone should be forced into producing alternative energy. Mostly because it seems like a no brainer that it's a good idea. We can't rely on oil forever. We all know that.
But we could rely on it for many generations to come, letting necessity be the mother of invention for a society of the future, with its more advanced technologies, to deal with purely theoretical energy shortages that certainly do not have to occur for many decades.
Call me an idealist, but I see the potential for building an alternative energy economy as this nation's chance to once again be innovative and to lead the world. To create jobs, to create something of some real value to everyone while solving some of the real challenges of both today and tomorrow.
I would call that idealistic -- I'd call it foolish. Jobs are not a benefit, they are a cost in that they keep people from producing other things. We don't need alternative energy, and so every man-hour spent developing it is a man-hour that can't be spent producing something we do need. Opportunity costs again -- you really might want to invest in an economics book.
I still urge the wealthy who feel they are being unfairly taxed to go ahead and "Go Galt." I still believe fully that if we could explore two paths we'd all be able to shrug at their strike, whereas if the workers of the world didn't show up for work for a single day, all hell would break loose and the whining rich would tear their hair out, since their wealth depends entirely on the working class.
Um, you might want to revisit the section in Galt's Gulch, where it was demonstrated that the producers can provide for themselves without everyone else. The whole point of the book, in fact, is that it doesn't work the other way around.
Post a Comment