Randian Thoughts

@kewpie said
I think you've proved your point, No.1. Neither of Ajay/Wajay can debate.

Piss off.

@shavixmir said
Haha.
You try to defend the moronic.

0 + 0

@wajoma said
No need to apologise to me that the book is over your head. ATY thinks Atlas Shrugged is about pirates, so you're not alone.

Edit: 9 million copies, 20 different languages, still going strong and No.1 thinks it's about rape and not going through the proper legal channels.

I missed your EDIT but both the rape and the destruction of the building show that Rand is sympathetic to the idea that Roark, being a "Creator" and all, can do whatever he pleases without facing meaningful consequences. Of course, that is a pleasant prospect for those who wish to engage in antisocial acts which harm others, so that the book has a follower isn't all that surprising.

@wajoma said
But the agreement was made, correct? And that if Roark thought it would not have been built as he designed it he would have had nothing to do with it. So Keating was not the owner? You’re getting desperate. People are often employed who have the authority to make those decisions on behalf of the owner or owners who may have only been money men, this is stupid speculating on this detail.

Your post is non-responsive to my point; Roark chose a remedy he surely knew he was not entitled to. He made no agreement with anyone that declared he could blow up the building if it varied from his specs (he would know such an agreement would be illegal anyway). Even if the owners were aware of the Keating-Roark agreement that no changes be made (which I don't remember if they were or not) they would reasonably expect any changes to the design to not result in its destruction but to standard legal remedies (these are all supposed to be experienced businessmen).

So how is his act "moral" in any way, shape or form?

@wajoma said
0 + 0

Is that your IQ?

@wajoma said
Piss off.

Take your own advice.

@no1marauder said
I missed your EDIT but both the rape and the destruction of the building show that Rand is sympathetic to the idea that Roark, being a "Creator" and all, can do whatever he pleases without facing meaningful consequences. Of course, that is a pleasant prospect for those who wish to engage in antisocial acts which harm others, so that the book has a follower isn't all that surprising.

Your 'facing consequences' is yet another freudian slip of yours, evidencing your philosophy that everyone must act according to the rules of 'The People' and society, the mob. So, Roark not your kind of guy, won't stay in line, being a sheep is just not his thing.
Consequences from whom?
Certain of your ilk just won't leave people the hell alone.
And do you like my previous post, Ayn's genius insight, that for you liberals wanting stuff, the stuff has to be created, or there would be nothing to dispense and disburse out for your welfare. Do you want Howard to create, or not? And if I want something of value from you, should I be free to come and tell you how to create it?

I think she prob felt the need to write this book when she heard ole Marx preaching on his soapbox.

@averagejoe1 said
Your 'facing consequences' is yet another freudian slip of yours, evidencing your philosophy that everyone must act according to the rules of 'The People' and society, the mob. So, Roark not your kind of guy, won't stay in line, being a sheep is just not his thing.
Consequences from whom?
Certain of your ilk just won't leave people the hell alone.
And do you like ...[text shortened]...
I think she prob felt the need to write this book when she heard ole Marx preaching on his soapbox.

So you think society should leave rapists and destroyers of other's property "the hell alone?"

@no1marauder said
So you think society should leave rapists and destroyers of other's property "the hell alone?"

I don't remember the part of him raping, but in any event, esp since he is not a real person, that is not the issue. I will relent that he should have been jailed for 20 years for rape if you would like.
But we are speaking of his independence, which is quashed daily by our government, and seemingly by various actors in the book. And by liberal institutions, but I digress.
As to destroying, bad idea on his part, but I put myself in his place..."I cant take it anymore'. 'IT' being daily changes being stuffed down our independent throats by dependent people. So I would reach a boiling point, he would not bend (as you would and Tooey and the boys running everything would) and I would not either. You see , the story is about a true man who would not bend to people like the Biden administration. Why would you have a problem with that premise, and her extreme response by Roark? It was his way of making an EXTREMELY important statement.
How bout you comment on what I wrote back there about morality? Did you find it acceptable?

@no1marauder said
I also asked this of AJ and Wajoma:

no1: AJ wants to talk about Roark; what's your take on the "morality" of blowing up a building someone else owns just because it wasn't built exactly the way you designed it?

That refers to Roark's action in dynamiting a building he designed because some changes had been made to it during construction that he found abhorrent. Rath ...[text shortened]... 's assertion mentioned in the OP. It surely made Howard Roark "happy", so does that make it "moral"?

damn this reads like fan fiction. Bad fan fiction

I thought Ayn Rand just wrote down some wet dreams the Koch brothers had once but this is way way worse

@zahlanzi said
damn this reads like fan fiction. Bad fan fiction

I thought Ayn Rand just wrote down some wet dreams the Koch brothers had once but this is way way worse

Koch Bros. own Molex and Invista, among many others. Look them up. You Zahlanzi, certainly use some of their products. Best you leave rich folks alone. How can you get stuff from other people if no one makes the stuff? Not very smart.
Everyone, what are we dealing with here? Their thinking stops with 'gettin the stuff.

@wajoma said
No need to apologise to me that the book is over your head. ATY thinks Atlas Shrugged is about pirates, so you're not alone.

Edit: 9 million copies, 20 different languages, still going strong and No.1 thinks it's about rape and not going through the proper legal channels.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Ragnar_Danneskj%c3%b6ld

In March of 2007, six years after the three received their bachelor's degrees and when Ragnar was on the cusp of becoming a PhD himself, Ragnar received a summons from John Galt to meet him, not at his home in Starnesville, Wisconsin, but in a garret apartment in a run-down brownstone in New York City. Francisco d'Anconia received a similar summons...

John Galt...announced to the three heirs that he would "stop the motor of the world." He began, of course, by wrecking his prototype and carrying away with him those portions of his notes that would enable any future investigator to duplicate his work. And now he was asking his two friends to join him in what he called the strike of the men of the mind, and recruit others to do the same.

The Privateer
Ragnar Danneskjöld's solution came from the heritage and tradition of his Viking forebears. How he acquired or captured a ship and outfitted it as a ship of war, or recruited and trained a crew to navigate and fight that ship, the novel never makes clear. From the descriptions given of his activities, Ragnar had a fast ship that nevertheless carried guns capable of bombarding either another ship or a shore target at long range. Ragnar also had at his disposal at least one aircraft: a cargo carrier with which Ragnar would later transport large quantities of the gold he collected in his activities...

And so he became a privateer, and in fact became known as the scourge of the high seas (chiefly the Atlantic Ocean and occasionally the Caribbean Sea).

A "privateer" with no Letter of Marque from a government is just a pretentious pirate.

@wajoma said
There was an agreement that it would be built as he designed it. Can you at least confirm you understand that point.

The agreement was with Keating, not the owners, and according to Ayn Rand, Roark should have called the government to arbitrate. If he had done so he would have lost the arbitration because he had no evidence supporting his claim.

MAYBE he could have sued Keating, IF Keating was willing to admit that he made the agreement. But dynamiting the building should have put him in prison for destroying other peoples' property.

Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness “The Nature of Government,”:

even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

Never forget the OCO (Objectivist Cop Out) - "Can he prove it?"

E.g.

"The land belongs to American Indians!" "Can they prove it?"

"Slaves made their masters wealthy and some of that wealth is rightfully theirs!" "Can they prove it?"

Etc.

@no1marauder said
Your post is non-responsive to my point; Roark chose a remedy he surely knew he was not entitled to. He made no agreement with anyone that declared he could blow up the building if it varied from his specs (he would know such an agreement would be illegal anyway). Even if the owners were aware of the Keating-Roark agreement that no changes be made (which I don't remember ...[text shortened]... all supposed to be experienced businessmen).

So how is his act "moral" in any way, shape or form?

I believe there was a verbal agreement between Keating and Roark that the plans would not be modified but in the real world capitalists make agreements all the time and violate them...as long as the other guy can't prove the agreement was made. This is the Objectivist Cop Out.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-fountainhead/book-summary

The climax of The Fountainhead begins when Keating, whose career is slipping because he's been replaced by a newer trend, begs Roark to design for him plans for the new low-income housing project called Cortlandt Homes. Keating knows he cannot solve the problems of design, and does not attempt to. Instead, he brings the specifications to Roark. Keating requests that Roark design it and allow Keating to take the credit for it. Roark knows that he can do it and is eager to. He also knows that he could never get approved by Toohey, who is the behind-the-scenes power on the project. Roark agrees only on the condition that the buildings be erected exactly as he designs them; Keating agrees. Keating will receive the recognition, the money, and whatever other benefits society may confer on a man — but Roark will build Cortlandt. Roark designs a masterpiece, Keating submits it as his, and Toohey accepts it. But when Roark is away on a cruise with Wynand, two of Toohey's lackeys alter Roark's design. When Roark returns, he dynamites the defaced masterpiece and allows himself to be arrested.

@averagejoe1 said
I don't remember the part of him raping, but in any event, esp since he is not a real person, that is not the issue. I will relent that he should have been jailed for 20 years for rape if you would like.
But we are speaking of his independence, which is quashed daily by our government, and seemingly by various actors in the book. And by liberal institutions, but I dig ...[text shortened]... t.
How bout you comment on what I wrote back there about morality? Did you find it acceptable?

https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/section5/page/2/

Analysis: Chapters 1–5
In these chapters, Rand begins to reveal more of Dominique’s motivations and nature. Dominique is a masochist who refuses to let herself become attached to anything or anyone and lives her life amidst the very things that torture her...

Rand presents Dominique’s rape as a violent but necessary encounter—as just what Dominique needs. Her depiction of woman as stubborn and frigid and man as masterful and healing might shock the modern reader.

The implied justification is that Dominique was a submissive who really wanted to be raped so it's ok.