Finishing up a big paper and need some input from the arfcom think tank.

1. A=A what does it mean to you?

2. How does Ragnar justify use of force? And who in the book disagrees with him?


Thanks

Don't convince yourself that something won't do exactly what it is designed to do. Don't analyze something so much that you forget the most basic facts.



I think Ragnar had two main justifications:

1. All of the things he stole were already stolen from the people who made them by the government. He never attacked private property or military ships.

2. The looters believed that the only way for men to deal with each other is force, so he uses force to deal with them.

I didn't really see anybody disagreeing with him. The reaction of the characters sounds kinda like what the average non-gun-owner thinks of using guns to defend yourself: the method may make them uncomfortable initially, but they don't really disagree with it.

BTW, pretty nice that your school is having you read Atlas Shrugged instead of a bunch of liberal touchy-feely crap.

A is A: observing with a rational eye instead of an emotional one. The antithesis of political correctness. Making choices based on accurate observations of the environment.  




Ragnar:  Took from the looters and gave to rightful owners.  Use of force was a means to right the injustice perpetrated by the “looters”.  Rand’s version of an objectivist Robin Hood perhaps?  

Second part is shaky…  I think Hank Rearden had a problem with it.  He was a puss in the beginning and slowly came around.  I could be way off base on that.

While I love Rand’s works, I am admittedly a light weight on the subject.

Thanks for the help guys.
I actually liked the book even though it was huge.
It parallels a lot of the worthless crap going on in the world today and is an eye opener for some with how bold the idoits are in what they say when they are screwing the people over, but still they do it and pacify the sheople into going along with whatever they spout.
Thanks again.

A=A is ayn's way of saying that things must be exactly as her objectivist mind thinks they is. a very primitive view.

Actually, I think she was speaking of the collective denial that goes on.  A lot of people will talk about how great socialism is, and how bad capitalism is, and stand in denial of both the positive features of capitalism, and the negative results of socialism.  They refuse to see that  developed capitalist nations generally have a higher technology level than developed communist nations.  They refuse to acknowledge that socialist policies run directly counter to the continued functioning of a healthy economy.  They divorce direct cause (socialist policies) and effect (a crashing economy).  Ad Infinitum.
Another application of 'A=A' is simply to name the goal of the enemy, something the enemy will not do.  People who are trying to be subtle and nonoffensive about their advocation of socialism will appeal to you about your social responsibility, the brotherhood of man, etc.  Their success - how effectively they can convince people that the society should be the focus - depends on how effective they are in convincing people they are NOT advocating socialism.  In other words, A cannot be seen as A, if socialism is to be accepted.
If you weren't already aware of it, all the rhetoric of the Democrats is consistent with a disguised desire for full-up socialism.
Objectivism is not without its problems, but Ayn was extremely perceptive when it comes to the methods of the enemies of capitalism and free enterprise.