It was better than I expected. One thing that really suprised me was how critical of capitalism that it seemed to be. Did anyone else get this out of it?
[ April 28, 2008, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just saw the movie, but I could see that being the case, as it was more about creativity and the bad guys were business suits, weren't they?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Was it critical of capitalism, or was it critical of something that passes itself off as capitalism?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, Rand was not solely a pro-capitalist, she was an objectivist, and her focus was on the producer not being plundered by non-producers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Was it critical of capitalism, or was it critical of something that passes itself off as capitalism?
As far as I could tell, critical of capitalism. The whole point of the book is to celebrate subjectively defined quality and bemoan that it was generally not recognized by the massses or the possessors of capital. It even showed how the workings of capitalism broke almost all the people who valued adhering to their creative principles.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, Rand was not solely a pro-capitalist, she was an objectivist, and her focus was on the producer not being plundered by non-producers.
Or vice versa. The whole idea of "plunder" irked her. She was about mutually agreed upon exchanges of values.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the difference is well put in this quote (from the wikipedia article)
quote:"I don't build in order to get clients, I get clients in order to build".
I'd venture to say that in her view at the time she wrote this, wealth is not of itself a virtue, but it is the fitting reward for virtue.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Was it critical of capitalism, or was it critical of something that passes itself off as capitalism?
As far as I could tell, critical of capitalism. The whole point of the book is to celebrate subjectively defined quality and bemoan that it was generally not recognized by the massses or the possessors of capital. It even showed how the workings of capitalism broke almost all the people who valued adhering to their creative principles.
The whole point of the book is to celebrate the individual. And yes, this does run into conflict with corporate capitalism. But corporate capitalism is not capitalism. Not by Rand's definition, and not by mine.
Michael Nystrom has an article up about corporations here that's worth reading.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The book is a statement of Sturgeon's law "90 percent of anything is crap." with some quibbles on the number. And it traces the reason to this two the sources of opinions and, especially, of funding. Neither the masses nor the accumulators of capital have any taste. Nearly all the "good" characters in the book are beaten when they try to go against these two sources. What you end up a is a desireable picture of a pseudo-oligarchy like the sort the Howard Roark builds around himself.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not sure it's a desireable picture. He goes through a lot of crap to get there.
On the one hand, I see the criticism of corporate capitalism. It is eerie that a corporation has a right to free speech, etc.
On the other hand, it rings to me of communists who argue that only Soviet communism was a failure, but pure communism would not have such problems.
Any system that is conceived of by a mostly rational person could work if it weren't for corruption, ignorance, and bad luck.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The book is a statement of Sturgeon's law "90 percent of anything is crap." with some quibbles on the number.
Yes, it really is. I hadn't connected the two, but you're right.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And it traces the reason to this two the sources of opinions and, especially, of funding. Neither the masses nor the accumulators of capital have any taste.
I don't see that. On the contrary, I think it's saying that lots of people prefer not to bother having any taste. They'd rather get by on what they're told their taste should be. And that this flaw occurs in the masses as well as the self-styled elites.
It's also saying that when you delegate your determination of values to others, there will always be someone or some group among those others who will use it in ways that will ultimately harm you (Toohey).
It runs throughout the book. The obvious fools in the book let people tell them that garbage is high culture. The big shot architects can't think for themselves, and are worried that if they don't stick with the "tried and true", they'll be rejected by others. And they point to Roark's teacher as an example, even though they're the ones who rejected him.
Peter can't think for himself. Dominique lets the crap out in the world serve as an excuse not to live up to her own values, and by doing so, she's doing the same thing that the crap-vendors are doing. Letting others determine her actions.
Gail Wynand lets his fears of powerlessness (compared to whom?) and rejection (by whom?) serve as an excuse to betray his own values as well.
Both Wynand and Dominique are representatives of the person who is part of the way there, but can't take it the rest of the way. They know how to formulate their own values, but their insistence on assigning too great an importance to the values of others undermines their ability to act according to their own values.
Dominique overcomes this. Wynand does not.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Nearly all the "good" characters in the book are beaten when they try to go against these two sources.
Gail Wynand wouldn't have been beaten if he'd stood his ground. He might have lost his paper, but he would not have been beaten. On the contrary, he was beaten when he put the representation of his values (the paper) over his values themselves.
That was his ultimate mistake. It wasn't the paper that gave him his power. It was his paper that robbed him of it.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What you end up a is a desireable picture of a pseudo-oligarchy like the sort the Howard Roark builds around himself.
Pretty much so.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: On the other hand, it rings to me of communists who argue that only Soviet communism was a failure, but pure communism would not have such problems.
Any system that is conceived of by a mostly rational person could work if it weren't for corruption, ignorance, and bad luck.
True. But in this case, what causes corporate capitalism is the same thing that Rand (and I) see as the source of so many ills. Government interference. If the government refused to recognize the legal fiction of corporations, and dealt with individuals as individuals, a lot of the objectionable things that are attributed to capitalism wouldn't be able to happen.
Forget ignorance. Forget bad luck. Forget even personal corruption. It's the government accepting the idea that signing incorporation papers can protect people from responsibility for their own actions.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was thinking more of the fall of the Soviet Union with the corruption, ignorance and bad luck. Oh, and Osama Bin Laden. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Gail Wynand wouldn't have been beaten if he'd stood his ground. He might have lost his paper, but he would not have been beaten.
He would have been financially...well, not ruined, but greatly reduced. He made himself subject to the dictates of the mob when he built his fortune on mass consumed media. But, it was the dependence and the resultign fortune that made his patronage of Roark possble.
The book - I think, unintentionally, comes back again and again to this theme. Choosing a field as resource intensive as architecture makes it almost necessary. The recognition and promotion of quality pits these people against the sources of capital which is necessary for these works of quality. This generally results in them either selling out or finanical collapse. The normal operation of the capitistic world in the book serves to greatly supress creativity and quality.
It is only in non-capitilistic structures, like Roark's psuedo-oligarchy, where people are at least somewhat protected from these supressive influences.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's the government accepting the idea that signing incorporation papers can protect people from responsibility for their own actions.
Except that it doesn't accept that. Incorporation doesn't protect ANYONE from their own actions.
Assume person A works for corporation Z. There is no action that A can commit that does not lead to personal liability for A if that action would lead to personal liability for A had A not worked for Z.
The only thing that could possibly be conceived as an exception to that is the default contractual rule that the limit of liability for a corporation under a contract is the total assets of that corporation. This effect can be duplicated in contracts between individuals (by putting express limits on liability under the contract) and can be overridden by requiring personal guarantees from individuals when contracting with a corporation. It is a form of freedom to contract. Both exceptions to the default rules are implemented with enormous frequency.
So, in the case of breach of contract by A, only Z's assets can be reached - unless the other party obtained a guarantee from A.
And if A committed fraud or any other tort or actionable act, he will be personally liable. The exception would be if the other party contractually agreed to limit those types of liability, and even that is restricted in most states.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If the government refused to recognize the legal fiction of corporations, and dealt with individuals as individuals, a lot of the objectionable things that are attributed to capitalism wouldn't be able to happen.
I'm not sure how this relates to The Fountainhead at all. Are you seeing something in the book that I'm not or are you bringing in outside sitautions?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now that I think about it, corporations do get sued pretty often, for the actions of their employees, and because they are corporations.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Corporations, as I understand it, aren't primarily set up to protect the employees from liability. Rather, they are to to protect the investors from liability for the actions of the people who use their investment capital to do things. At times, these can be the same people, though, which complicates things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A corporation is responsible for the acts of its employees acting within the scope of employment, and "scope of employment" is a very broad term. It includes acts performed in violation of corporate policies if those acts have some connection to the employee's duties.
There are a host of torts that are recoverable because of this type of liability that would otherwise not be, because individuals are often judgment-proof.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Gail Wynand wouldn't have been beaten if he'd stood his ground. He might have lost his paper, but he would not have been beaten.
He would have been financially...well, not ruined, but greatly reduced.
And? Ultimately, his ruin was the result of his not standing his ground. His personal ruin.
In the real world, sometimes you have to choose between personal success, living according to your values, or what the world considers to be success. Roark chose one way. Wynand chose another.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: He made himself subject to the dictates of the mob when he built his fortune on mass consumed media. But, it was the dependence and the resultign fortune that made his patronage of Roark possble.
And that was his problem. He thought that was important. It wasn't. Roark would have preferred to forgo the patronage and have a Gail Wynand who acted according to what he knew was right.
Wynand thought that the end justified the means. Throughout the book, that's all he says. It's okay to do valueless or immoral things if they result in something good.
This was his mistake. The ends never justify the means. They may explain the means, they may mitigate culpability for the means to some extent, but they don't and can't justify them. Not ever. And Wynand didn't get that.
He made himself subject to the dictates of the mob when he allowed success to be more important to him than doing the right thing.
In this, he was Roark's opposite. Over and over, Roark could have succeeded had he bent his stiff neck. Had he considered success to be true success, he would have done so. But he didn't. He considered that sort of success to be rank failure.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The book - I think, unintentionally, comes back again and again to this theme. Choosing a field as resource intensive as architecture makes it almost necessary. The recognition and promotion of quality pits these people against the sources of capital which is necessary for these works of quality. This generally results in them either selling out or finanical collapse. The normal operation of the capitistic world in the book serves to greatly supress creativity and quality.
But notice that Roark was able to build, even with his attitude. Maybe not as much as he would have had he given in, but that's simply a question of what's more important, quality or quantity?
It isn't the capitalism that surpresses his creativity. On the contrary, this book shows capitalism and non-capitalism to be utterly irrelevant to the basic choice of whether a person will live by his own values or serve the values of others. Whether a person will choose to lose well rather than win poorly.
The people who did hire Roark and who did value Roark were themselves capitalists. That's how they had the money to hire him and to build. It wasn't capitalism that explained the others, but the individual moral weakness of the people running those corporations.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It's the government accepting the idea that signing incorporation papers can protect people from responsibility for their own actions.
Except that it doesn't accept that. Incorporation doesn't protect ANYONE from their own actions.
Assume person A works for corporation Z. There is no action that A can commit that does not lead to personal liability for A if that action would lead to personal liability for A had A not worked for Z.
The only thing that could possibly be conceived as an exception to that is the default contractual rule that the limit of liability for a corporation under a contract is the total assets of that corporation. This effect can be duplicated in contracts between individuals (by putting express limits on liability under the contract) and can be overridden by requiring personal guarantees from individuals when contracting with a corporation. It is a form of freedom to contract. Both exceptions to the default rules are implemented with enormous frequency.
So, in the case of breach of contract by A, only Z's assets can be reached - unless the other party obtained a guarantee from A.
And if A committed fraud or any other tort or actionable act, he will be personally liable. The exception would be if the other party contractually agreed to limit those types of liability, and even that is restricted in most states.
If I dump a barrel of poison into a river, I'll be put in jail. Quite properly. If I work for a big corporation and I'm told to dump a barrel of poison into the river, there's no chance in hell that I'll even be prosecuted. I'm not even the person who did it. The corporation did. And while the corporation might get sued, I'm certainly not responsible for "just doing my job" (sounds a lot like "just following orders", now that I think about it).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Now that I think about it, corporations do get sued pretty often, for the actions of their employees, and because they are corporations.
Getting sued is one thing. I'm talking about being prosecuted and jailed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:If the government refused to recognize the legal fiction of corporations, and dealt with individuals as individuals, a lot of the objectionable things that are attributed to capitalism wouldn't be able to happen.
I'm not sure how this relates to The Fountainhead at all. Are you seeing something in the book that I'm not or are you bringing in outside sitautions?
My point is that there's a difference between what you're seeing as "capitalism" in the book and what capitalism really is. You're seeing corporations.
But you're right, I shouldn't have gotten off on that tangent. The book isn't about capitalism. It's about individuals. Whether they run companies or wash windows.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The problem I see Wynand had (and my familiarity with the material isn't great) was that when he was building his business, he thought he was contributing to what the masses believed. But this was only true to the extend he contributed to what they wanted to believe.
I do think there is a kind of power in that. (this may be going off on a tangent) Everyone has good and bad in them, and it depends a great deal on what is highlighted. I do think it's possible to build people up by focusing on the good rather than the bad. But the good has to be there or it's a lie. I'm less certain at what point overlooking the bad becomes a lie.
I've been thinking about this with respect to someone who died last week and examining the belief I'd previously held about the importance of the condition of the soul at the time of death. I'd just never really thought about it before. I'd never been personally acquainted with a person who died who was sometimes a felon and sometimes a hero.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You're seeing corporations.
I'm pretty sure I'm not. I'm seeing sources of capital.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But notice that Roark was able to build, even with his attitude.
I think you're missing my point. Roark is the very large exception to the creative, quality producing people in the book and even his work is dependent on people not being like him. Without other people compromising to acquire capital, Roark would not be able to create. And, in most instances, the people who he creates for or who try to promote him are either financially ruined or sell out because of the pressures brought against them.
Roark would be able to build more and better under a different form of society and the various other people who were crushed by the specificly capitalistic workings of the society would perhaps, not have been crushed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I dump a barrel of poison into a river, I'll be put in jail. Quite properly. If I work for a big corporation and I'm told to dump a barrel of poison into the river, there's no chance in hell that I'll even be prosecuted. I'm not even the person who did it. The corporation did.
This is just untrue. It misstates the law and actual practice.
There are cases when the actual dumper doesn't know (or the government can't prove that the dumper knew) that there was poison in the truck. In situations like that, if the law requires a knowledge or intent, then the person is quite properly acquitted. But that would happen even if the person did not work for a corporation.
quote:And while the corporation might get sued, I'm certainly not responsible for "just doing my job" (sounds a lot like "just following orders", now that I think about it).
This also is wrong. Personal liability attaches all the time in these situations. Most lawyers don't bother suing the low-level employees because they have no assets worth taking. But many upper-level people can be and are sued in such situations.
This isn't even an example of a misunderstanding of a highly technical point of law. What you have posted just isn't true.
quote:Getting sued is one thing. I'm talking about being prosecuted and jailed.
Lots of them get prosecuted and jailed. Lay was convicted. So was skilling. Ebbers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If I dump a barrel of poison into a river, I'll be put in jail. Quite properly. If I work for a big corporation and I'm told to dump a barrel of poison into the river, there's no chance in hell that I'll even be prosecuted. I'm not even the person who did it. The corporation did. And while the corporation might get sued, I'm certainly not responsible for "just doing my job" (sounds a lot like "just following orders", now that I think about it).
I'm almost positive that the law doesn't work that way. In practice, a large corporation has the resources to make convicting people who were committing crimes to further the corporation's interests very difficult, but the law certainly doesn't make them "not even the person who did it." or, of itself, protect them from prosecution.
A person who commits an illegal act at the behest of a corporation is legally just the same as someone who did it on their own.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A person who commits an illegal act at the behest of a corporation is legally just the same as someone who did it on their own.
And, on top of that, both the corporation and his superiors* in the corporation can be charged either as principles, accomplices, solicitors, or co-conspirators.
*edit: who participated or issued orders
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We hold that section 6928(d)(2)(A) covers employees as well as owners and operators of the facility who knowingly treat, store, or dispose of any hazardous *665 waste, but that the employees can be subject to criminal prosecution only if they knew or should have known that there had been no compliance with the permit requirement of section 6925.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Roark would be able to build more and better under a different form of society and the various other people who were crushed by the specificly capitalistic workings of the society would perhaps, not have been crushed.
What form of society would you propose?
We have to keep in mind that for Roark, success was not in wealth or recognition or even in the love, but in being able to build. All the former things flowed to him through the virtue of the latter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What form of society would you propose?
It's not about proposing a society. It's about recognizing that the capitalistic aspects of the society in the book were in part responsible for the bad things it was talking about.
quote:We have to keep in mind that for Roark, success was not in wealth or recognition or even in the love, but in being able to build.
His ability to build was directly related to other people acquiring capital to finance his buildings, which required them to behave other than with Roark's ideological purity.
Other people who had a strong drive to create were not as favored in circumstance as Roark or were less strong in their adherence to their principles and were crushed by, among other things, the capitalistic influences of society.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the thing that concerns me about communism and objectivism is that they seem (and I may just not really understand them) to be somewhat static, while capitalism incorporates dynamic forces such as the market.
That's where a concept of ideological purity sounds kind of scary to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: We have to keep in mind that for Roark, success was not in wealth or recognition or even in the love, but in being able to build. All the former things flowed to him through the virtue of the latter.
It wasn't even that, really. It was being true to himself. He makes it clear that he's happier not building, but remaining true to his vision of building, than he would be building at the cost of that vision.
It's a thread that runs through her books. Francisco's speech about money in Atlas Shrugged points out that it isn't money for money's sake that's a value. It's what the money stands for. If it doesn't stand for that, it may be able to buy things, but it isn't a value in the way that Rand looked at things.
Same with building for Roark. Building isn't the value for him. It's the means by which he is able to express the true value (his individual vision) and as such is of lesser importance to him.
This thread is making me very sad. How is it possible to see building, as such, as Roark's value? How is it possible to see capitalism as a villain in the book? I'm just stunned.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Because you want to be stunned? It's quite clear he was willing to not build rather than compromise. I don't know why you willfully decide I don't understand.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Does your misconception of the legal liabilities of employees of corporations likewise stun you?
---
edit: I've written why I saw The Fountainhead as being - most likely unintentionally - critical of capitalism. From what I can tell, my arguments are logically consistent. If that stuns you, it's possible this arises from the same place as your belief that the laws on corporations are the opposite of what they actually are.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I haven't read The Fountainhead, but I have read a bit about Ayn Rand herself and her philosophy. She was very much pro capitalism. Here's a quote:
quote:Capitalism is the only system geared to the life of a rational being and the only moral politico-economic system in history
worth noting, she's specifically talking about(or at least a supporter of) Laissez-faire Capitalism.
She was pretty anti-communist, I think too much so, which I saw as mostly being a reaction to where she came from. I see the same thing in my family.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, that's why I was suprised to see what seemed to me to be such a strong criticism of capitalism in her book. I don't think it was intentional, though.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
could be, i'm in no position to comment!
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have been on my to-read list for an embarrassingly long time. Probably since high school.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, that's why I was suprised to see what seemed to me to be such a strong criticism of capitalism in her book. I don't think it was intentional, though.
Certainly not. Furthermore, by your definition of "capitalism", she was not a proponent of capitalism. Ever. When she used the word, she meant something different than you mean.
Context isn't something that can be ignored. If the author of a book says, "This book supports my philosophy, which includes support of capitalism", and you see things in it which are anti-capitalism, given your concept of what capitalism, the only rational conclusion is that you and the author are using the word differently.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The movie was pretty exciting. I know I'm on thin ice debating it, but I did read Atlas Shrugged so I have some exposure to the literary scope of the ideas. But it was also 16 years ago.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:the only rational conclusion is that you and the author are using the word differently.
I can think of a few other rational conclusions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lisa, are you going to comment on the corporation issue at all?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, Dag. I'm not. We've had this disagreement before, and I continue to disagree with you. It may be that you're correct, and that if the law was enforced correctly, the existence of corporations would not run counter to individual responsibility on a criminal level. But that's not the way it works in the real world.
Other than the fact that this is the 3rd or 4th time we've disagreed about this, I didn't want to discuss it here because it isn't relevant to the thread.
MrSquicky has miraculously managed to read The Fountainhead as being anti-capitalism. That's not the problem. The problem is that he refuses to accept that by the author's own testimony, it is not, and that if he thinks it is, he must be using the word differently. That's more interesting to me than the evil of corporations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, Dag. I'm not. We've had this disagreement before, and I continue to disagree with you. It may be that you're correct, and that if the law was enforced correctly, the existence of corporations would not run counter to individual responsibility on a criminal level. But that's not the way it works in the real world.
Actually, we haven't had this disagreement before. We're not really having it now.
In the past, you've made bald assertions about corporations that are factually untrue. In response to corrections, you've usually just refused to acknowledge contrary evidence.
This time I've provided concrete counterexamples to your chosen example of dumping. Your response? Another bald assertion ("But that's not the way it works in the real world") made without any evidence.
Suing employees of corporations for acts committed by those employees is common. Prosecuting corporate employees for crimes committed in furtherance of the corporation is common.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No, Dag. I'm not. We've had this disagreement before, and I continue to disagree with you. It may be that you're correct, and that if the law was enforced correctly, the existence of corporations would not run counter to individual responsibility on a criminal level. But that's not the way it works in the real world.
Actually, we haven't had this disagreement before. We're not really having it now.
In the past, you've made bald assertions about corporations that are factually untrue. In response to corrections, you've usually just refused to acknowledge contrary evidence.
This time I've provided concrete counterexamples to your chosen example of dumping. Your response? Another bald assertion ("But that's not the way it works in the real world") made without any evidence.
Suing employees of corporations for acts committed by those employees is common. Prosecuting corporate employees for crimes committed in furtherance of the corporation is common.
Not in the same way. If I dump a barrel of poison into a river, I can claim I didn't know it was poison, but there's going to be an issue of negligence that simply won't exist in a corporate setting, where oversight responsibility for my actions is held to belong to others.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:the only rational conclusion is that you and the author are using the word differently.
I can think of a few other rational conclusions.
Would you care to name just one?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not in the same way. If I dump a barrel of poison into a river, I can claim I didn't know it was poison, but there's going to be an issue of negligence that simply won't exist in a corporate setting, where oversight responsibility for my actions is held to belong to others.
That's just not true, Lisa. The claim one didn't know what was in a barrel will almost certainly not provide a defense against negligence on the part of the employee pouring the stuff into the river even if true. It's likely the employee won't actually be sued, because the guy doing the dumping usually has no money. But that's a choice made by the plaintiff, not the law.
Moreover, the corporation as a whole will also be liable - the key word being "also."
Lack of knowledge will provide a defense against some (but not all) environmental crimes, because it is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that some mental element is required for most crimes.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Would you care to name just one?
I'll give it a shot.
"Capitalism means X"
If I think X is bad, then this reads as a condemnation of capitalism.
If I think X is good, then this reads as an endorsement of capitalism.
It's a very contrived example, but I think you can see where advocacy for a position could be seen as criticism of that position if the reader doesn't come from the same philosophical starting point as the author.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Did this book make anyone else cry? Seriously, I cried. I know...I'm strange.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Not in the same way. If I dump a barrel of poison into a river, I can claim I didn't know it was poison, but there's going to be an issue of negligence that simply won't exist in a corporate setting, where oversight responsibility for my actions is held to belong to others.
That's just not true, Lisa. The claim one didn't know what was in a barrel will almost certainly not provide a defense against negligence on the part of the employee pouring the stuff into the river even if true. It's likely the employee won't actually be sued, because the guy doing the dumping usually has no money. But that's a choice made by the plaintiff, not the law.
Moreover, the corporation as a whole will also be liable - the key word being "also."
Lack of knowledge will provide a defense against some (but not all) environmental crimes, because it is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that some mental element is required for most crimes.
But corporations are by definition "limited liability" so the people who reap the profits (i.e. the stockholders) can never be held liable for more than the value of their stock. As long as that is the case, their will be pressure for corporations to place safety concerns over profit.
What's more, in practice actually employees of the company enjoy an apparent limited liability in practice as well. When was the last time a CEO, board member or even middle manager of the company went to jail for poisoning a stream for blowing up a small town.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:When was the last time a CEO, board member or even middle manager of the company went to jail for poisoning a stream for blowing up a small town.
I think that has more to do with the difficulty in pinning the blame on a specific individual in a large organization, as well as the resources available to the organization for defending itself and it's employees. The fact that the corporation is a separate legal entity from its employees and owners is not the cause of this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Would you care to name just one?
I'll give it a shot.
"Capitalism means X"
If I think X is bad, then this reads as a condemnation of capitalism.
If I think X is good, then this reads as an endorsement of capitalism.
It's a very contrived example, but I think you can see where advocacy for a position could be seen as criticism of that position if the reader doesn't come from the same philosophical starting point as the author.
It's contrived, all right. I didn't say there was no other explanation. Just no rational one, given the actual context. Which includes an enormous volume of writings by the same author, btw.
What you're saying could fly if there were no context at all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tammy: Did this book make anyone else cry? Seriously, I cried. I know...I'm strange.
Why is that strange? I'm curious, though. What part made you cry? There were places that had me on the verge of tears.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's contrived, all right. I didn't say there was no other explanation. Just no rational one, given the actual context. Which includes an enormous volume of writings by the same author, btw.
*shrug* If you say so.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I read it in the summer of 2003, and I highly enjoyed it.
quote:"Mr. Roark, we’re alone here. Why don’t you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."
"But I don't think of you."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But corporations are by definition "limited liability" so the people who reap the profits (i.e. the stockholders) can never be held liable for more than the value of their stock. As long as that is the case, their will be pressure for corporations to place safety concerns over profit.
Which is a VERY different thing than what Lisa said.
Moreover, there are a couple thousand ways to create that limited liability that I doubt most people would favor getting rid of. For example, people who lend money are generally not held liable for what the borrower does with it. It's trivial (but time-consuming) to create a deal structured as a loan that still gives the profits to the lender. Even without doing that, the pressure to make loan payments creates the exact same pressure. The phenomenon you describe is not unique to corporations or to limited liability entities, nor does it arise from their limited liability nature.
quote:What's more, in practice actually employees of the company enjoy an apparent limited liability in practice as well. When was the last time a CEO, board member or even middle manager of the company went to jail for poisoning a stream for blowing up a small town.
I linked two in this thread. And those are only the ones that created appellate rulings on employee liability. It was a 30-second search on Westlaw. Were I to dig more deeply, I'd find more.
Moreover, outside the environmental area, there have been dozens of high-profile prosecutions for actions taken on behalf of corporations.
quote:I think that has more to do with the difficulty in pinning the blame on a specific individual in a large organization, as well as the resources available to the organization for defending itself and it's employees. The fact that the corporation is a separate legal entity from its employees and owners is not the cause of this.
Exactly. It's very difficult to prove these crimes whether the entity is a corporation or a mob family.
As long as we as a society want to carry out endeavors that require more than one person, this problem will exist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:the only rational conclusion is that you and the author are using the word differently.
I can think of a few other rational conclusions.
Would you care to name just one?
Sure. A rational conclusion is that my arguments aren't actually correct. This is something that could potentially be determined if you actually addressed them as opposed to making ideological (and sometimes demonstrably false) statements unconnected to either the book or what I've said.
What I actually think happened is something that I think we've actually sort of covered. As I said, I don't think that this criticism was intended. Rather, it just grows naturally out of the reality of the situations she was trying to portray. As you said, the focus inThe Fountainhead was not on capitalism and how there aren't any problems with it at all, but rather on individualism. In order to make the points on individualism that she did, Ayn Rand pulled in situations from a capitalistic society that showed a bad aspect to it.
In capitalism, people who control the capital control the resources and can determine what is done with those resources. As such, people who want to create things using those resources (or just exchange their labor for the means with which to support themselves) are beholden to the people who have capital. Taking it simplistically, there are two traditional sources of this, individuals or small groups that have accumulated disproportionately large amounts of capital or a mass of people, each with some small amount of capital.
In pushing her individualism message, Ayn Rand makes the point that these sources of capital tend to use it in ways that oppose quality and creativity. She demonstrates a world where there are obvious problems in that these people can do what they do with their capital.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tammy: Did this book make anyone else cry? Seriously, I cried. I know...I'm strange.
Why is that strange? I'm curious, though. What part made you cry? There were places that had me on the verge of tears.
You know, it was so long ago, I can't say. I had mixed emotions through out the entire book. I remember that I was definitely into the relationship tug of war between Roark & Dominique. They broke my heart so many times.
I think Rand did an extremely good job in writing the controversial rape episode. It left me a little stirred and shaken and then some.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)