sean

Galt's motor

9 posts in this topic

So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State? The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax.

Why would a state run utility drop its rates should one ever find a way to actually make a profit for a while?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State? The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but I don't see how your question fits the events of the story. The motor was created for a private company. The company went out of business because of its own policies, and the motor was left to rot. So why would Galt go to some government office and give them his motor? How does that fit into anything? What do you mean by "delivering non-violent solutions"? What is the problem and what is the solution here?

If a burglar were to break into your house and all he wants is to steal your computer, would you hand him your gun so he can shoot you, so as not to leave any witnesses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess the hope would be that people would sit up and take notice that there was an unlimited supply of clean free power and then ask themselves, why in the hell am I paying for something that comes free of charge? You might make a good argument with a business that suckers people into buying bottled water, but a government packaging and selling free power? Come om now, we would be talking conspiracy if that was the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State? The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.

I don't think that handing the motor over to the State is the same thing as free trade with places like China because giving and trading is not the same.

Also, why would he hand the motor to the government, what good would that do him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State? The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but I don't see how your question fits the events of the story. The motor was created for a private company. The company went out of business because of its own policies, and the motor was left to rot. So why would Galt go to some government office and give them his motor? How does that fit into anything? What do you mean by "delivering non-violent solutions"? What is the problem and what is the solution here?

If a burglar were to break into your house and all he wants is to steal your computer, would you hand him your gun so he can shoot you, so as not to leave any witnesses?

The problem is State power cost labor to produce and the violence comes when it's time to force people to pay for that lobar. Taking the labor out of it means less of a reason for the State to use force on people.

And no, I would not let a burglar come into my house, but I might have a reason to give someone a computer free of charge. I can't think of any reason off hand, but there might be one out there. I just also believe there might have been a reason to just hand over a working generator to the State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State? The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but I don't see how your question fits the events of the story. The motor was created for a private company. The company went out of business because of its own policies, and the motor was left to rot. So why would Galt go to some government office and give them his motor? How does that fit into anything? What do you mean by "delivering non-violent solutions"? What is the problem and what is the solution here?

If a burglar were to break into your house and all he wants is to steal your computer, would you hand him your gun so he can shoot you, so as not to leave any witnesses?

The problem is State power cost labor to produce and the violence comes when it's time to force people to pay for that lobar. Taking the labor out of it means less of a reason for the State to use force on people.

I don't understand this. You seem to be implying that it is easier for the state to rule those who only use manual labor and there would be no incentive to become efficient or reduce the amount of labor required to produce a product. If that's what you mean, I'd agree.

And no, I would not let a burglar come into my house, but I might have a reason to give someone a computer free of charge. I can't think of any reason off hand, but there might be one out there. I just also believe there might have been a reason to just hand over a working generator to the State.

The example did not involve letting a burglar into your house, he broke into your house (as I stated). The comparison was voluntarily "trading" with the burglar in the same way that you hold trading with China is acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I guess the hope would be that people would sit up and take notice that there was an unlimited supply of clean free power and then ask themselves, why in the hell am I paying for something that comes free of charge? You might make a good argument with a business that suckers people into buying bottled water, but a government packaging and selling free power? Come om now, we would be talking conspiracy if that was the case.

They'd find some way to explain it away. They'd claim that charging us keeps other taxes low, keeps us from being spoiled, that it helps with some altruistic cause, etc. ("Charging for power forces us to minimize how much we drive, which minimizes roadkill, which is good for the enviornment, which is good for people ten generations out.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State?

He did hand it over to the state. He left it out in the open with no attempt to hide it knowing fully well that they would not recognize its value or know what to do with it.

The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.

It doesn't make any difference that a "solution" is directly "non-violent". You don't help an enemy. You don't do it because of justice and because of the direct consequences it makes possible. Whatever you do to help him makes it easier for him to survive and do more damage by any means possible. It is a betrayal and an affront to every victim to help his tormentor in any way.

When some victims inside the USSR saw that the US was "cooperating" with and helping the Soviets it was more crushing to their spirit than anything the communists had done -- it destroyed their belief that there was a kindred spirit somewhere out there that they had admired and seen as a sign that justice was still possible in the world, who might even some day rescue them.

You don't morally sanction evil in any way, not by "peaceful" cooperation or any other way. You don't give it the sanction of the victim and you don't sanction or ignore in indifference what it does to other victims. That is a betrayal of the good. We all know people like that.

If John Galt had made it possible for the state to use his invention it would have been a sacrifice that undermined everything about his character, his actions, and the entire theme of the novel. The heroes who were part of the strike had to struggle not to help their spiritual allies like Dagny and Rearden because it would have undermined and delayed their cause and the purpose of the strike. They recognized that the Dagnys and Reardens in the outer world were unwittingly acting as their own enemies and that of the strikers. For Galt to undermine his own understanding and goals by "peacefully cooperating" with his worst enemies -- while not helping Dagny and Rearden because of what it would mean -- would have reduced the novel to a moral obscenity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites