Randian Thoughts

@wajoma said
There's no cop out in 'The Fountainhead' we're privy to all the relevant conversations, it's a book, we know that there was an agreement that the building was to built as it was designed by Roark otherwise he would not have worked on it. No1 tried the boohoo Keating wasn't the owner tack, it's puerile, for the sake of the story and often in real life people are employed to ac ...[text shortened]... book, if that's the limit of your comprehension, then it's not for you, go and see Barbie the movie.

No one is ignoring why Roark blew up the building; we are saying his reasons for doing so were the irrational response of a sociopath.

Breaches of contract do not justify the use of force; surely your Non-Aggression Principle is violated by such an action.

Roark's response is that of an angry child, not an experienced, rational businessman.

@no1marauder said
No one is ignoring why Roark blew up the building; we are saying his reasons for doing so were the irrational response of a sociopath.

Breaches of contract do not justify the use of force; surely your Non-Aggression Principle is violated by such an action.

Roark's response is that of an angry child, not an experienced, rational businessman.

So you think that Rand should have depicted him bouncing around like a fairy, to find someone, 'please listen to me, i am so offended and upset..."
Or, at wits end dealing with Nazis, do what Churchill and the allies did......why talk? Do you suggest that Roark just bow to the whim of people who literally told him how to draw the lines on his building plans? Bow? You want a free thinking creator to fit a mold of some sort? Should I fit the mold of Sonhouse, or that of Vivify if the don't like my posts? Should they be allowed to dictate my writings? ? ? ?

@averagejoe1 said
So you think that Rand should have depicted him bouncing around like a fairy, to find someone, 'please listen to me, i am so offended and upset..."
Or, at wits end dealing with Nazis, do what Churchill and the allies did......why talk? Do you suggest that Roark just bow to the whim of people who literally told him how to draw the lines on his building plans? Bow? ...[text shortened]... like my posts? Should they be allowed to dictate my writings? ? ? ?

Maybe you should blow up their houses in righteous response.

@no1marauder said
No one is ignoring why Roark blew up the building; we are saying his reasons for doing so were the irrational response of a sociopath.

Breaches of contract do not justify the use of force; surely your Non-Aggression Principle is violated by such an action.

Roark's response is that of an angry child, not an experienced, rational businessman.

They should have left him the hell alone. My number one mantra.

@averagejoe1 said
They should have left him the hell alone. My number one mantra.

Your comment doesn't make sense. He is the one who decided to make the designs which Keating submitted with Roark's permission.

Maybe he should have left everybody else the hell alone.

@no1marauder said
Your comment doesn't make sense. He is the one who decided to make the designs which Keating submitted with Roark's permission.

Maybe he should have left everybody else the hell alone.

That is a good point, I read it when I was 25, so don't remember the details, but I could say he didn't care who looked at it, since he was the only decision maker. I am only assuming that he was NOT required to get any approval for his project, given the nature of Roark as developed by Rand.
If he indeed was the final world, and was thwarted, Rand had to be quite demonstrative (blow up building), taking literary license to prove her point. Surely the fans of the book followed her thinking and did not get wadded-up panties for blowing it up. The point to be made was more clearly understood, that he took a stand, for, say, the good of independent man????

@averagejoe1 said
That is a good point, I read it when I was 25, so don't remember the details, but I could say he didn't care who looked at it, since he was the only decision maker. I am only assuming that he was NOT required to get any approval for his project, given the nature of Roark as developed by Rand.
If he indeed was the final world, and was thwarted, Rand had to be quite d ...[text shortened]... be made was more clearly understood, that he took a stand, for, say, the good of independent man????

Forgive me for using the Wikipedia synopsis but I don't feel like wasting an inordinate amount of time wading through a 753 page book to find the relevant sections:

"Keating knows his most successful projects were aided by Roark, so he asks for Roark's help in designing Cortlandt. Roark agrees in exchange for complete anonymity and Keating's promise that it will be built exactly as designed. After taking a long vacation with Wynand, Roark returns to find that Keating was not able to prevent major changes from being made in Cortlandt's construction. Roark dynamites the project to prevent the subversion of his vision."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead

That the fans of the book like a sociopath acting like a lunatic is hardly indicative of the moral correctness of his crime.

@no1marauder said
Forgive me for using the Wikipedia synopsis but I don't feel like wasting an inordinate amount of time wading through a 753 page book to find the relevant sections:

"Keating knows his most successful projects were aided by Roark, so he asks for Roark's help in designing Cortlandt. Roark agrees in exchange for complete anonymity and Keating's promise that it will be bui ...[text shortened]... k like a sociopath acting like a lunatic is hardly indicative of the moral correctness of his crime.

One of your better posts. Imagine Sonhouse presenting such a concise plain explanation.
OK, on the face of it, the guy was nuts. No one would do that, and if they did, sent to prison.
But as I said earlier, Rand used her writing abilities, as a springboard to the minds of Americans, to apprise them of 'what can happen to them' if they allow an outside entity to run their lives. Funny y'all are on the subject, because we are at the advent of the democratic government running our lives, this very day.
She naturally, being an independent sort, was concerned that the USA would end up under a dictator, n'est ces pas? Liberals on this very forum would beat up rich guys like Henry Ford or Rockefeller in a heartbeat. They tried to beat up Roark. Too bad, could have had a lot nice buildings.

@no1marauder said
Maybe you should blow up their houses in righteous response.

Very clever, thumb up, but dont tell anyone i do thumbs

@averagejoe1 said
So you think that Rand should have depicted him bouncing around like a fairy, to find someone, 'please listen to me, i am so offended and upset..."
Or, at wits end dealing with Nazis, do what Churchill and the allies did......why talk? Do you suggest that Roark just bow to the whim of people who literally told him how to draw the lines on his building plans? Bow? ...[text shortened]... like my posts? Should they be allowed to dictate my writings? ? ? ?

Churchill and the Allies went to their guvaments to solve the Nazi problem

@athousandyoung said
Churchill and the Allies went to their guvaments to solve the Nazi problem

But you still get my point, the facts are quite different, in that Churchill needed a few hundred thousand men and a plethora of tanks. Roark was an independent individual. Sorry to use that word.

@averagejoe1 said
What would be the philosophy which is directly obverse to the philosophy of Ayn Rand?

In three words it is: individualism versus collectivism.

And collectivism is just an excuse for sacrificing men for the supposed good of the group. We see it where No1 is quite happy to sacrifice his fellow man to a medical experiment. He got sacred of the bogey man flu - everyone must now take part in a medical experiment of unknown consequences (that's what experiments are) The drug Co CEO were happy to sacrifice their fellow man to the experiment for other reasons - dollars. The pollies were happy to sacrifice their fellow men to the experiment - power.

No1's scaredy pants fear (+ the state) = other people on the sacrificial heap.
Drug Co's greed for profits (+ the state) = other people financially and physically on the sacrificial heap
The States insatiable lust for power = citizens on the sacrificial heap

Death by Government. Add up all the smoking, alcohol, vehicle, obesity, deaths and it doesn't make a dint on what goobermints have done to their own people, and it's all in the name of the collective good.

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.

H L Mencken

@no1marauder said
No one is ignoring why Roark blew up the building; we are saying his reasons for doing so were the irrational response of a sociopath.

Breaches of contract do not justify the use of force; surely your Non-Aggression Principle is violated by such an action.

Roark's response is that of an angry child, not an experienced, rational businessman.

Roark should have done this, Roark should have done that.

Those responsible should have built the building as agreed and it would have been a very short book.

If (for example) someone has refused to pay for work done (a breach of contract) then it does come down to force and threats of force. Co's and investors who have overcommitted and been unable to honour their agreements regularly go into receivership, have their property sold out from under them.

This is like saying: A bunch of squatters move into your house while you're away on vacation, hey, they didn't initiate force, therefore, well, guess we'll just have to find somewhere else to live, wonder if they'll be paying the property tax, or do we still have to do that.

Or some renters stop paying the rent on your, let's say, planned retirement investment. Oh well, guess we'll leave them to it, they didn't initiate force, we'll just have to keep buying retirement investment properties and one day there'll be a tenant that pays rent.

@wajoma said
Roark should have done this, Roark should have done that.

Those responsible should have built the building as agreed and it would have been a very short book.

If (for example) someone has refused to pay for work done (a breach of contract) then it does come down to force and threats of force. Co's and investors who have overcommitted and been unable to hono ...[text shortened]... ave to keep buying retirement investment properties and one day there'll be a tenant that pays rent.

Or some renters stop paying the rent on your, let's say, planned retirement investment. Oh well, guess we'll leave them to it, they didn't initiate force, we'll just have to keep buying retirement investment properties and one day there'll be a tenant that pays rent.

That's what the guvamint is for isn't it?

@athousandyoung said

Or some renters stop paying the rent on your, let's say, planned retirement investment. Oh well, guess we'll leave them to it, they didn't initiate force, we'll just have to keep buying retirement investment properties and one day there'll be a tenant that pays rent.

That's what the guvamint is for isn't it?

Please explain. There are laws to be obeyed. Govt made the laws. Their part is done.
So what are you saying? I think maybe you mean 'that is what Courts are for'?
Man, you libs must think about government every 15 minutes.