Sorry, another Atlas thread. Something occurred to me I don't think anyone's pointing out.

[Capitalocracy]

Railroads? Really? Trains?

Conservatives are going to get behind a movie about someone who creates a better railroad? High-speed rail would be a really great thing here in the real world, but guess what? No railroad anywhere ever got built without help from the government, and the teabaggers are AGAINST investing in new rail technology.

I haven't seen the movie or read the book. Maybe there's something I'm missing here. But trains? Really?

Maybe we can use this to our advantage. Maybe if they all suddenly fall in love with trains, we can convince them we need high-speed railways.

[niyad]

1. well, the book WAS written in the 50's-- and the founder of the railroad apparently

built the entire system with not one dime of govt money.

[Capitalocracy]

2. Yeah, and he's a self-made man...

not a trust fund baby or someone who bought his way into massive government contracts

because it's FICTION! and that's the narrative they're telling here. The guy is a saint, obviously. Like all rich people.

[Turbineguy]

3. They need to throw themselves

on Wyatt's Torch.

[regnaD kciN]

11. "Throw Ayn Rand From The Train"...

:rofl:

[Drale]

4. Its not about high speed rail itself but

the fact that it would be under Amtrak which is basically socialism.

[kestrel91316]

5. Amtrak is no more "socialism" than our MTA buses and light rail are socialism.

Government steps in when no private companies are willing or able to provide the services the public demands.

Taxpayer-funded public services, plain and simple. Like the ROADS, too.

[Drale]

6. O I know but

these "Socialism haters" aren't the brightest bunch and don't care about facts.

[happyslug]

7. her "hero" was model after the Great Northern Railway founder John J. Hill

And it wasn't for the introduction of the ICC, he would NEVER have built the Great Northern (Do to possible ICC regulations on what he charged on his trains, he invested any profits back into the company, thus avoiding excess capital build up that would have permitted the ICC to force him to reduce his rates).

For more in Hill see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jerome_Hill

Hill had two more advantages, his main competitor the Northern Pacific Railway, was built to maximize profits from selling land given to it by the Federal Government as a Subsidy. The owners of the Northern Pacific prefer selling land then operating a railway and did everything they could to maximize the land their ended up owning (The Federal Government gave Railroads ever other Section of land the Railroad went by). One of the nick names for the Northern Pacific was the "Snake Belt" for it was shaped like a snake as it went from one area of good farm land to another, even if it meant backtracking on its route (One joke about the Northern Pacific was it was faster to walk from one end to the other then to take the train, for the train made so many turns to steal lands).

As to Hill, this meant he had no real competitor AND the land the Northern Pacific sold, could switch to his more direct route.

A secondary advantage was the Northern Pacific went to Portland Oregon (With a side line to Puget Sound) Hill took the Great Northern over the Cascades directly to Seattle (Where he had a Steamboat line to the Far East). This was a more difficult route, but opened up Puget sound to his use.

During the recession of the early 1890s, Hill did what all the railroads did at that time, cut wages. His workers went on strike. To settle the Strike he agreed to Arbitration where the wages were restored (One of Eugene Debs few Victories). This set up Debs for the Pullman Strike of a few years later, a fight Debs did not want, but had to fight in face of Certain defeat (But that is another story).

One aspect of Hill, Ayn Rand ignored is his preferred situation with other railroads, "Hill's philosophy of "community of interest," a loose affiliation or collusion among roads in an attempt to avoid duplicating routes" is more of people working together then one person fighting for everything he wanted Hill had showed this earlier, when he worked with businesses and immigrant farmers, in helping them start their businesses and farms, knowing he would get their train business. Again more working together as a team and as a member of a team then as an individual. Rand just ignored this aspect of Hill, for it did not fit her agenda, but Hill was her model and thus why she went with a railroad theme.

[Capitalocracy]

8. You took a rather silly thread

and turned it into something quite informative. Bravo! :applause:

I believe there's something very, very wrong with conservatives, and with our society in general, that's reflected by (or caused by?) our laserlike focus on this fantasy of "competition" and our total blind spot for "cooperation". If you're a believer in the invisible hand as being similar to evolution, you should understand that cooperation and coexistence are equally important evolutionary strategies as competition.

[happyslug]

12. The Right wing is NOT Conservative, there are reactionary.

Conservatives follow the Edmund Burke tradition who is response to Payne wrote in support of change when needed, but oppose change for change sake. Payne and Burke's real dispute was the pace of change, Payne was full speed ahead, even if people were hurt, Burke was more look before your leap, but if the leap is worth it do it.

The present GOP Right wing is NOT Conservative (I prefer to call it the Economic Right Wing), they want CHANGE almost as radical as any proposed by any Left wing radical of the 1960s. They want to return to US to a period of time that never was. Where collective action is viewed as bad, but any individual action is viewed as good. What Government does (For Government is always collective) is bad, but what Corporations (Being viewed as "Individuals") always doing what is best. Thus the right wing hate anything to do with Government (Except Police and the Military to protect their property rights), hate unions, hate Churches (The Right wing may month that they are pro-Religion, but they are not, the right views Religion as a way to get people to support what they want NOT what the Religion calls for) in effect hate anything of a communal nature (Which can include Public Parks, Little league etc).

Now, you will notice the Right Wing, but its nature, to small to get a Majority, thus the right wing buys allies. The clearest example of this is the Religious Right Wing, the Religious Right Wing oppose abortion, but then want help to the poor. The Economic Right Wing bought the Religious Right Wing off with promise of banning abortion, but never did carry out that promise even when the GOP controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency under Bush II. One of the reason the Democrats won in 2006 was the Religious Right wing sat out that election given that they had no one to vote for (i.e. the Democrats were clearly pro-Abortion, the GOP says they were Anti-abortion, but never did anything about abortion). The rest of the Religious Right Wing Agenda was handled with equal disdain by the Economic RIght Wing Controlled GOP (I.e. not done). This seems to have started in the 2004 election (Bush actually LOST votes in Rural Right Wing Religious areas, but gained them in Urban Areas). With the Democratic Victory in 2006, 2008 was looking like a Democratic year, thus the real fight was over the Democratic Nomination in 2008, not the GOP nomination or even the election.

The Tea-party is an attempt by the Economic Right Wing to get the people who use to make up the Religious Right Wing back into the voting booth. It does NOT have the depth of the Religious Right Wing, it just has huge financial backing. Even with that huge financial backing, the Tea Parties were only barely able to give the House to the GOP and increase the GOP minority in the Senate AND credit for that should go to the Left wing sitting out the election (i.e. the Left wing suffers the same problem as the Religious Right Wing, the GOP oppose what the Left wing wants, while the Democratic Party only gives it lip service).

Side note: The left wing is made up of two overlapping groups, the Economic Left Wing (Unions and other Economic progressives) and the Social Left Wing. The Social Left Wing supports Gay rights, the economic Left Wing does not think Gay Rights is worth fighting an election over (The economic Left Wing will NOT oppose Gay Rights, but will NOT risk losing an election over Gay Rights. Obama's recent acceptance of ending "Don't Say, Don't Tell" has more to do with the need to increase recruits then any support for Gay Rights (And Congress support, especially in the House, has more to do with increasing Recruits).

The Economic Right Wing wants the US in Iraq and Afghanistan for its economic benefit (Not the US Economic Benefit but the Economic Right Wing Economic Benefit). The Economic Right wing remembers Vietnam and that the biggest source of opposition to the war was do to the fact that people were drafted at that time. The draft would kill any support the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has in the US, opposition to those wars would increase so much that the US will have to pull out. At the same time, without more recruits we do NOT have enough boots on the ground i.e. to have any hope of winning we have to go to the draft, but a draft will force the US out of both Wars which would lead to Cut back in Military spending. Thus the Economic Right wing is looking to increase Recruits any way it can, even if that means the Religious Right Wing and the Military Right Wing are turned off by who is being recruited. I bring this up for the recent change in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has less to do with Congress becoming more Progressive on the issue, but more to how to increase recruits without a draft. It is thus another example of the Economic Right wing knocking off its allies for its Economic Benefit, not any real change of heart by the Economic Right Wing (No matter what they say).

Just pointing out the Economic Right Wing which controls the GOP, will do anything it view as its Economic Benefit, no matter who it hurts. The Economic Right wing is NOT to be trusted for its has and will betray anyone who it associates with. The Social and Economic Left wing do NOT have that reputation. The Economic Right Wing has a long history of telling the Social Left Wing what it will and will not support (Causing constant friction between the two), furthermore the Economic Left Wing has always been the larger of the two left wing groups (But the Social Left wing has always been more vocal, for unlike the Economic Left Wing it can not bring itself to ally with the Religious and Military Right Wing, something the Economic Left Wing has a long history of doing, for many Economic Left wingers are also Religious Right wingers and Military Right Wingers).

[Johonny]

13. Yes her hero lived in the Gilded Age

where most people ended up losers and a few people "won".

I think the funniest part of Ayn Rand is that she preached a philosophy of individual selfishness that generated a cult of divine obedience to a selective few (mostly her). You'd think such rugged individualist would be more self determining, but her philosophy ends up in blind obedience instead :)

[athenasatanjesus]

9. Maybe Ayn Rand was actually doing parody.

She was the female Stephen Colbert of her time.

[Capitalocracy]

10. I wonder how future generations will remember Colbert.

The conservative student quotes Colbert to justify his twisted worldview.
The history teacher says, "Uh, you know he was joking, right?"
Conservative student's head explodes.