Atlas Shrugged was in the book case when I was growing up, but I never read it. It was certainly mentioned quite a lot in our house — apparently many of my parents’ friends were very impressed with it — but I never understood what the big deal was. Then a few days ago (half a century later) I watched the film trilogy available on YouTube. Now I understand.
In Ayn Rands’ dystopian narrative the government is inherently fascist. This must have seemed a mildly shocking idea in 1957 when the novel on which the trilogy is based was published. America, after all, was still recovering from a world war in which, nominally, civilization had defeated fascism.
I am most struck, however, by Rand’s prescience in depicting the fascist state’s promotion of fairness as a unifying social principle in political messaging by which it grabbed power. This at exactly the moment when the state and society itself were collapsing, as Rand tells it.
It is just so today. Moral concepts of fairness are everywhere promoted as excuses for needing more government. Once you see the behavior acted out by clearly evil characters, it is hard to miss it in real life.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
One of the mantras from conservatives is that they believe in equality of opportunity, whereas the liberals seek equality of outcome.
A bit simplistic, but also wrong. The idea behind affordable and accessible healthcare, education, and legal services (meaning justice) along with better wages at the bottom is to make the “equality of opportunity” more of a reality rather than just a bumper sticker phrase in political contests.
Government is seen as an obstacle to innovation. Yet, much of the basic research that private enterprise taps into is publicly funded that includes pharmaceuticals. Crony capitalism keeps that public sector contribution to all risk, no reward. Government also protects startups from being squashed by established companies through anti-trust and other legal protections. That is protecting and encouraging innovation.
The idea that if all the innovators and smart folks left for some land, the rest would founder is clearly based on a view that so “black and white” it makes no sense. Any nation is built upon the structure of a mix in talent, drive, intellect and abilities. A smart governance learns to effect the best results out of what is available. Not what it wishes it had. (Thank you Rumsfeld.)
IMHO
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “The idea behind affordable and accessible healthcare, education, and legal services (meaning justice) along with better wages at the bottom is to make the ‘equality of opportunity’ more of a reality rather than just a bumper sticker phrase in political contests.”
I don’t believe that, at all. In fact, I am not aware of any philosopher, economist or political scientist who has ever made a serious effort to promote such an idea.
But I am less concerned with Big Ideas today than with a simple, practical observation. When people talk about fairness in a political context, it is because they want to take advantage of you.
LikeLike
Because you don’t believe what I wrote doesn’t make it wrong.
I did not expect agreement. I was expressing what I think is the best way to approach and perhaps eventually attain, a level playing field. That does not mean all who have access to a baseline of good health, education and enough food and shelter to afford both will do well.
If you conduct a foot race among those who have such access, but put leg irons on those who don’t, the outcome will invariably be the same.
That their are nations which are very competitive and certainly capitalistic, yet reduce the barriers to health, education and a safety net for both young and the retired, is telling me that we can do better. And more than likely, become more competitive in the global marketplace.
It is a selling point of the Republicans, particularly with this regime, that someone, anyone, is going to take advantage of you should they get some forms of assistance. This totally rejects the truth that should misfortune strike you, you are just as eligible as anyone.
But that is not the whole picture. Affordable healthcare, education and enough wages to support those and the basics are not welfare. They are good economics, in my opinion. People who are mired in poverty raise children who will stay in that bracket with some exceptions. And that is a drag on the economy for so many reasons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “They are good economics, in my opinion.”
Most economists I have read, from Aristotle forward, would disagree with you, but if you think you can make the case let’s hear it.
LikeLike
There is a huge difference between the health care and other safety net programs in Scandinavian countries and those proposed here.
There, it is really a group purchase with everyone paying their proportional share through payroll and consumption taxes. But those plans proposed here rely on a few percent of the taxpayers bearing the load for everyone.
That makes them immoral and ultimately self destructive. Nothing good comes from making us a nation of thieves.
LikeLike
RE: “Nothing good comes from making us a nation of thieves.”
What fascinates me is how a little thievery always grows into a lot of it.
LikeLike
I agree. If we are to pay for M4A, it should be the same way we pay for Medicare now; payroll taxes. Right now that is about 3%. Even if we were to go to 10 or 12%, it would still be a bargain.
Warren and Sanders are not going that route and I think it will hurt their candidacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The world isn’t fair, and efforts to make it so are worse than the unfairness.
You might like the short story “Harrison Bergeron”
Click to access harrison.pdf
LikeLike
That one was a doozy!
LikeLike
Yeah, it should be required reading for anyone who mentions ‘fairness’ and ‘government’ in the same sentence.
LikeLike
Defense of Rand’s work is always entertaining, if nothing else…
LikeLiked by 2 people
That story was the nightmare of the equality of outcome.
Equality of opportunity would be removing the shackles and weights to let people compete on their merits.
The shackles of poor health, the weights of bad education. A child born into such an environment is forced to compete with those already on third base.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, how do you do that?
In Harrison Bergeron, that footrace would be made fair by hacking a leg off the other racers.
Buy there is no way to make the one legged guy run faster. Perhaps he can compete in something other than footraces.
I spent 40 years working in a field where a 0.1mm error is serious. But I couldn’t get a basketball through a hoop with a funnel.
People don’t have to be equal in every way, they have to do the best they can with what they have.
LikeLike
“ People don’t have to be equal in every way, they have to do the best they can with what they have.”
Either I’m writing in Mandarin or Farsi or i am not explaining my point.
I never said people or outcomes have to be equal.
Repeat, I never said people or outcomes have to be equal.
I was making a case for opportunity by making health care and education affordable. Then at least those who cannot afford medical care today or lack education or the wherewithal to get it, can compete in the marketplace. And get a shot at the better jobs or even starting their own businesses.
You want to keep the poor, one legged man on crutches and illiterate and see how he fares. I would like to have him be able to get a prosthetic leg and a good education. Then let him loose in the market to succeed or fail on his merits.
There is no downside to trying to achieve a healthy and well educated workforce. Everybody benefits. Just like good infrastructure.
But it costs money.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “There is no downside to trying to achieve a healthy and well educated workforce.”
In that case, we should kill the sick and the stupid.
LikeLike
I did watch a bit of the last part. Regardless of the value of the novel, the movie seemed pretty bad.
When it came out, it was seriously panned for production quality:
0% at the aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.
“Alan Scherstuhl of the Village Voice wrote: “Rand’s parable is meant to showcase just how much our world needs the best of us, but this adaptation only does so accidentally – by revealing what movies would be like if none of the best of us worked on them.”
”Writing for the Austin Chronicle, Louis Black said “In 1949, when Warner Bros. filmed The Fountainhead, Rand threatened to burn down the studio if they compromised her novel. I’d like to think that if she were alive she’d be looking for lighter fluid for this one.”
Wikipedia
It’s a shame. But maybe some novels are best left to print and let the reader do the visualizing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank Herbert’s DUNE comes to mind…
LikeLike
I actually, and have taken mucho abuse for it, thought it was pretty good at capturing the essence of the storyline.
LikeLike
In both cases, the movie is better if you have already read the book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The movies were badly underfunded, and filmed a year apart instead of immediately and in sequence. There were even cast changes between segments. The Hollywood establishment didn’t want it to be made.
Still, with the resources available it does try to get the point across.
One of the things that is better about the book is that you can put the faces you choose on the characters. When I first read it, it was easily filled in with members of the Clinton administration.
It’s not an easy read but considering it was written when I was 8 it captured today pretty well.
LikeLike
“ The Hollywood establishment didn’t want it to be made.”
Maybe. On the other hand, a lot of timeless classics made crappy films. And some comic books made very successful ones.
It’s a business. Guns and T’N’A make the big bucks.
One of the early moguls, Sam Goldwyn, said with regards to “important themes”:
“If you want to send a message, go to Western Union.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should have watched the first part. After reading the character list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_Shrugged_characters
The movie really doesn’t do an adequate job of introducing them. as it was meant for people already familiar with them.
The degree to which Rand had today’s ‘progressives’ pegged 60 years ago is eerie.
LikeLike
As the Republicans have steeped us in endless wars, are now fouling the air we breathe, the water we drink and saddled your children and grandchildren with ruinous debt precipitated by Wall Street chicanery and tax cuts, I think you’ll find progressive thinking to be refreshing.
There is a responsibility for maintaining a nation that is freer than most, less corrupt, abides by the rule of law for most, safe from invaders, a stable society and an abundance of natural resources that is the envy of the world. And that costs money.
“Shrugging” is another of way of putting “I got mine, so I’m outta here.”
Childish, really.
IMHO
LikeLike
Childish?
Is it moral to shield a government of looters and moochers from the consequences of its oppressive acts?
LikeLike
If we had a government of “moochers and looters” you’d have a point.
People who take advantage of the resources, safety, rule of law, lack of corruption, a free market and then complain about one of the lowest effective tax structures in the industrial world are the looters.
Those same folks managed to almost destroy the world economy by fraud and greed enabled by lax regulations. And now the financial sector is looking for Trump to get rid of the new laws so they can do it again. Moochers? And looters?
Mining, mainly coal, are getting regulations stripped that protected waterways and people from effluent. So now the people have to clean that crap up a few years down the road so your grandchildren have clean water. Moochers?
Drug companies that benefit from basic research that we, the taxpayers, funded then charge the highest prices in the world so modest income Americans have to choose between life and the electric bill. Moochers and looters?
Yes, government can be a bit much at times. It has been noted that an entrepreneur in Scandinavia has an easier time setting up a business. That is probably because the private sector is looking for protection from competition.
In my opinion, the thievery is not taxes.
LikeLike
Many try to convince people that everyone is equally motivated to achieve and provide for themselves so throwing “free” education, “livable wages”, fairness, etc is the cure all for a balanced fair society. That approach to a socialist society doesn’t take into account that free stuff creates apathy, idleness and desire for more free stuff which is why socialism only makes everyone poor and dependent and ultimately failing. Life ain’t fair, sorry.
LikeLike
Boy, I gotta say that some people see my words but not my meaning.
Affordable and accessible healthcare and education does not mean I am for totally “free”. I wrote “affordable and accessible”.
I was making a case for equality of opportunity, not outcome. I wrote that in my first comment. Pretty hard to advance with crappy health that you can’t afford to deal with. Or lack of decent education because your parents can’t afford to live in an affluent zip code. Or you have to into heavy debt just to get a BA. Or you can’t afford legal advice or bail even if you are innocent.
This is not a matter of welfare, it is a matter of not getting the most out of our population because the barriers are in the way for a big percentage of it.
Ever wonder why we rely on immigrants for STEM jobs? Particularly when we have millions of people mired in poverty out of which we most certainly have some brainpower.
True, life is not fair. Some have medical issues that can’t be solved. Or can’t learn things. Some have parents who treat them like crap. Or no parents at all. Or are just unlucky. Or are not driven. So some won’t benefit from affordable and accessible healthcare and education. But that does not mean we should deny them such access. Provide the opportunity regardless of economic status. Don’t shut the door in their faces from day one.
BTW there are several different paths to reach that goal. Medicare for All is but one and it may not be the best. I think everyone should have some skin in the game based on ability to pay.
Bottom line is that equality of opportunity should not ring hollow.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I was making a case for equality of opportunity, not outcome.”
Yes, you were. I hate to tell you, though, that you seem to misunderstand the concept the way conservatives think of it.
Generally speaking, conservatives don’t think that equality of opportunity is some sort of ideal or goal that needs to be pursued. Coming up with social objectives our political system might usefully pursue is a preoccupation of liberals more than conservatives.
The idea that, for example, sick people need to be given government-provided health care in order to enjoy “equality of opportunity” is so far outside of conservative thinking that it is hard to know where to begin in explaining it.
Here, possibly, is a start: To a conservative, a one-legged man has equality of opportunity in a foot race.
LikeLike
“ The idea that, for example, sick people need to be given government-provided health care in order to enjoy “equality of opportunity” is so far outside of conservative thinking that it is hard to know where to begin in explaining it.”
That’s not what we should be looking at. The benefit of affordable healthcare is that it prevents people from getting sick, or having a minor issue turn into a major one. You are making the case that a healthy workforce is of little benefit.
As far as the one-legged man, we have addressed that already with ADA. I guess you are saying that if you are saddled with a less than perfect body, you have to settle for stuffing boxes at a charity center.
Up until the women’s movement that took fire in the 60’s, women were really relegated to “women’s work” such as teaching, nursing, etc.. Doctors, scientists, engineers were not available to women, or barely so. Well, we were wasting 50% of our national intellect based solely on sex. Today, more women are getting advanced education than men. The “hard” fields are filling up with the fairer sex.
The point is simple. If we ignore large segments of our population due to sex, color, poverty, poor health or lack of education we are wasting a great national resource. Conservative or not, that is not an agenda that makes sense economically, socially or morally.
I don’t know what kind of case that could be made for saving opportunities for the privileged, but you seem to be making one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You are making the case that a healthy workforce is of little benefit.”
No. I am making the point that using government to create “affordable healthcare” is immoral.
RE: “Up until the women’s movement that took fire in the 60’s, women were really relegated to “women’s work” such as teaching, nursing, etc.. Doctors, scientists, engineers were not available to women, or barely so.”
My great aunt built a medical practice in Philadelphia long before the 1960s. The point of which is only that you may be fantacizing a world that doesn’t exist. The risk you take in doing so is that of telling lies in the service of doing “good.” It is hard to see what real good such efforts can ever do.
RE: “I don’t know what kind of case that could be made for saving opportunities for the privileged, but you seem to be making one.”
No. I am making the case that stealing from the “privileged” is not justifiable.
LikeLike
Kudos to your great aunt.
Of course there were exceptions. And they did in fact prove the norm. You know that. But I’m not going to get into “she did, she didn’t” contest with you.
At this point you are being argumentative for the thrill.
See ya.
LikeLike
RE: “At this point you are being argumentative for the thrill.”
No, I am being argumentative because you are promoting falsehoods. Here, you are exploiting a phrase often used by conservatives to convey a liberal concept.
LikeLike
“ …you are exploiting a phrase often used by conservatives to convey a liberal concept.”
That is because conservatives are throwing roadblocks by ignoring the importance of affordable (not free) healthcare and education.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, that’s what we should all do. Find a fictional novel and base our lives, our politics, and our moral codes on it. Worked for the Bible, Koran, and countless others.
Of course, for me it was the Reivers. ‘Splains a lot.
LikeLike