Now, I had done reading part III of Atlas Shrugged. There, the looters’ self-destructive policies, such as the Steel Unification Plan, which would nationalize Rearden Metal, and their aspiration attempt to make John Galt as their dictator, which are driven by hatred of the good for being good. They cannot tolerate the existence of independent, competent individuals who succeed without them, so they seek to devastate and navigate individuals rather than admit their own inadequacy. They act that way, because They cannot create, only exploit. The looters (politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate cronies) survive by leeching off producers like Rearden and Dagny. When their system collapses, instead of accepting responsibility, they escalate their demands—because acknowledging the need for freedom and merit would mean admitting their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy. The evidence is as shown…. James Taggart sabotages his own company like using inferior rail, betraying Dan Conway, because he hates competence. When Dagny succeeds, he doesn’t learn from her, which he resents her for making him feel powerless. His glee at hearing about Rearden’s unhappy marriage (as mentioned in Part I, Ch. IV) shows he feeds on others’ suffering, not for gain, but because it reassures him that even the best is "flawed." Real people act like this, for instance, politicians who publish success like taxing innovators excessively while subsidizing failure like vilifying "the 1%" while rewarding cronyism.
Comments
Post a Comment