Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
Since Rand Paul opposes US imperialism and blanket surveillance, it would make sense for progressives to support him. But I know better than to think progressives would make sense.
Thanks, Tyler – when I have to look up a reference, that means it’s time to re-read the book. I think that the last time I read “Atlas Shrugged” was in high school, when it appealed to me.
I suspect I’m a little less naive at this point in my life. OTOH, it would be a great idea if all the industrialists and CEOs moved off into a valley somewhere. They’d all starve without the little people to grow the food, bring it to them, and prepare it.
As you may–or more likely not–remember, Ragnar’s explanation of his hostility to Robin Hood was because of how he is remembered. The actual point of the Robin Hood myth was that the nobles were unproductive and therefore were stealing from the productive peasants and Robin Hood was merely returning the wealth to whom it belonged. However, the meaning that survives today is that it is always good and justifiable to steal from the rich and give to the poor without consideration for which is productive in a given circumstance. Both Ragnar and I have no problem with the original meaning.
You’ve evidently missed the point of the book. Rand’s belief is that the ‘industrialists” deserve all the wealth that other people create. (So does Rand Paul for that matter) She’s on the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Ragnar describes himself as “the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich” At no point does he say anything about the original intent.
The very idea of the “productive rich” is laughable. Very few people actually get rich off their own labors. Yes, some do – Mark Zuckerberg comes to mind.
But most are more like Paris Hilton or George Bush who never did a lick of productive labor in their lives, and simply inherited their wealth. Donald Trump never actually built a building, other people dug the holes and pounded the rivets. The CEO of Ford never built a car, never designed a car, never contributed one, single, thing to the economy but his compensation is far larger than the guy’s who actually built your ride.
Then there is the “thieving poor” – these would be the people who ARE productive, the laborers that turn Rearden’s alloy into usable products. Like I said in my original comment – Reardon and Ragnar et al, are going to starve unless some of them actually get their hands dirty, at which point THEY will be the “Thieving poor” who resent the unproductive strikers.
All the industrialists in the story ‘get their hands dirty’ even those who were born into privilege. They are all workers. They know the nuts and bolts of their operations. Much like Rockefeller or Carnegie. And I know what Ragnar said since I read the book in its entirety last autumn.
You might find it interesting to note, Ted, that «aa» (in more modern orthography, «å») in the Scandinavian languages is pronounced like an English «o»…. 😉
12 Comments.
> Is Rand Paul from Scandinavia?
Are his supporters from Earth?
Since Rand Paul opposes US imperialism and blanket surveillance, it would make sense for progressives to support him. But I know better than to think progressives would make sense.
Rand Paul wants to increase defense spending while cutting taxes.
… but I know better than to think that conservatives can do grade school arithmetic.
He’s a doctor, but supports the anti-vaxxers.
… but I know better than to think that conservatives actually have any convictions.
He’s a complete and utter koolaid party whack job
… but I know better than to think that conservatives would reject a whack job.
For more fun facts, Google “Nazi Origins of the Olympic Flame.”
That’s Wyatt’s Torch, methinks.
Thanks, Tyler – when I have to look up a reference, that means it’s time to re-read the book. I think that the last time I read “Atlas Shrugged” was in high school, when it appealed to me.
I suspect I’m a little less naive at this point in my life. OTOH, it would be a great idea if all the industrialists and CEOs moved off into a valley somewhere. They’d all starve without the little people to grow the food, bring it to them, and prepare it.
Honestly, I put it down after Ragnar’s savaging of Robin Hood.
!
As you may–or more likely not–remember, Ragnar’s explanation of his hostility to Robin Hood was because of how he is remembered. The actual point of the Robin Hood myth was that the nobles were unproductive and therefore were stealing from the productive peasants and Robin Hood was merely returning the wealth to whom it belonged. However, the meaning that survives today is that it is always good and justifiable to steal from the rich and give to the poor without consideration for which is productive in a given circumstance. Both Ragnar and I have no problem with the original meaning.
@jack
You’ve evidently missed the point of the book. Rand’s belief is that the ‘industrialists” deserve all the wealth that other people create. (So does Rand Paul for that matter) She’s on the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Ragnar describes himself as “the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich” At no point does he say anything about the original intent.
The very idea of the “productive rich” is laughable. Very few people actually get rich off their own labors. Yes, some do – Mark Zuckerberg comes to mind.
But most are more like Paris Hilton or George Bush who never did a lick of productive labor in their lives, and simply inherited their wealth. Donald Trump never actually built a building, other people dug the holes and pounded the rivets. The CEO of Ford never built a car, never designed a car, never contributed one, single, thing to the economy but his compensation is far larger than the guy’s who actually built your ride.
Then there is the “thieving poor” – these would be the people who ARE productive, the laborers that turn Rearden’s alloy into usable products. Like I said in my original comment – Reardon and Ragnar et al, are going to starve unless some of them actually get their hands dirty, at which point THEY will be the “Thieving poor” who resent the unproductive strikers.
I’m betting on “starve”
All the industrialists in the story ‘get their hands dirty’ even those who were born into privilege. They are all workers. They know the nuts and bolts of their operations. Much like Rockefeller or Carnegie. And I know what Ragnar said since I read the book in its entirety last autumn.
You might find it interesting to note, Ted, that «aa» (in more modern orthography, «å») in the Scandinavian languages is pronounced like an English «o»…. 😉
Henri