John Galt or George Bailey

[Senex]

No, but he does make you sit through 130 minutes of light and sweetness which is almost as bad.

I like It's A Wonderful Life. It's a metaphor for how someone who doesn't look especially important can make positive differences in many people's lives. We all know we all die. Death is the great equalizer, but everyone leaves a legacy. It's nice to think during a winter holiday break that just being kind and doing what you feel is right can make a difference to other people. I buy into that around the holidays.

I can see how you can compare and contrast Galt and Bailey. Bailey values kindness and gentleness where Galt cares less about that but only values results. Galt (and Reardon) and Bailey all have the ego to keep their name on their businesses. Keep in mind, if it wasn't "Bailey Savings and Loan" George would have gone on his honeymoon.

 

[RobRoy]

A RANDIAN HERO????? Who designs static electric motors????&%*%%$! That's one odd book.

So I take it you haven't read the book. I don't know why everyone gets so hung up on the fictional motor. It's more a symbolic potential than an actual potential. But of all the reasons to think of John Galt or Atlas Shrugged as "one odd book" this seems one of the weakest.

By comparison, George Bailey seems like a pretty regular guy.

George Bailey's psychology is pretty messed up in the extreme. Sure, there are reasons why he can't leave town immediately, but we're told he's never, ever been able to take a trip to anywhere. He's unable to "make a dime" from all the houses his company has built and all the loans they've provided, while at the same time the rest of the town appears to prosper. Then there's the contrived emergency that sends George, mere minutes early, over the edge to the contemplation of suicide versus jail. The deconstruction is that after all his efforts, all his being a stand-up guy and savings people from themselves, his choice is to off himself. For such a smart guy, he should know that insurance doesn't pay for a suicide, and yet that's the crux on which the movie is based, and by which the angel Clarence is sent to save him.

Both characters have extreme issues and when viewed by the light of reality waver considerably.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

/Who decides which trades are "equitable"?

The individuals involved in the trade.

It seems to me that "whatever the market will bear" encourages inequitable trades. Also, that human history (such as my understanding of it allows) is one of inequitable trades. (Manhattan Island for a handful of beads ,pay for this indulgence and be forgiven your sin, "Try this crack" et..al.)

Are all men to be punished by the collective because of the sins of some men?

Furthermore, the globe is a closed system. I am party to trades that I did not agree to when my neighbor dumps GHB onto the ground and makes the water I depend on undrinkable, or decides to sell firearms to criminals. Doese'nt a reasonable person agree that the collective has the obligation to act in these situations?

The neighbor in your circumstance has injured your property. The proper role of government is to provide remedy here.

The government in America was designed to secure the rights of the individual, the collective has no rights.

I also am not convinced that possession automatically confers ownership, How is it that I have food when the man down the street does not? If one can arbitrarily decide that is it not right for him to excersize his physical superiority and take my food, can't one arbitrarily decide that it is not right for me to withhold it from him?

You traded for food, the man down the street did not. What right does he have to your food? If he were to take your food by force than he would be violating your right to the food.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't think Galt and Bailey are so opposite. Would Galt have let his brother drown? Did Bailey demand to be supported by the efforts of others? Both are unrealistic, but they are not so different in principle. Galt opposed 'leeches' using force to live off of the productive, Bailey on his own initiative and with his own resources decided to help out people during tough times. One is hard-edged and uncompromising and the other is fuzzy and helpful, but opposites of Galt can easily be found in the novel, and Bailey doesn't resemble them much.

My initial reaction to the OP was that they were opposites. I now think that you are correct. Thanks.

The veneer is different, not the substance.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For such a smart guy, he should know that insurance doesn't pay for a suicide...

Not true.

 

[Foolmewunz]

[DERAIL]

Have I mentioned lately how much I love this place?

A deconstructivist pop-psycology analysis of the merits of two fictional characters! Can we do Blanche DuBois and Wonder Woman next?

Reminds me of my friends in Montreal, who between the Super Bowl and the baseball season were so hungry for a bet that they put a hundred bucks on the outcome of a fictional basketball game.

It was the first-season finale of The White Shadow. Carver made the city title game, and the bartender at Darwin's and my friend Simon did an in-depth analysis...
Bartender (serious sports fan): Hey! They've got a potential H.S. All-American in the center, a strong high post, and a decent point guard.
Simon (theater student): Naaah. It's the first season, and they can't win the title - what'll they do next year?

We actually showed up for the game and had side bets going. Those of us who bet on the Hollywood reality (that they'd lose for reasons of keeping the series interesting) started crying foul in the first five minutes when one of the starting players gets killed as a bystander in a robbery. "All bets are off! No one said they were going to have an inspirational death in the opening act!"
[/DERAIL]

 

[RobRoy]

Not true.

Which part are you denying? That George Bailey should have known that insurance companies don't pay on suicides, or that insurance companies don't pay on suicides?

If the former, then we only have George's general business sense and "success" (he managed to stay in business for years without making any personal profit), his understanding of money, investment, loans, building codes, contracts, etc. to go on. So yeah, I suppose he could have been completely in the dark about an insurance company not paying out for suicides.

If the latter, then apparently I'm misinformed on life insurance policies and suicide. I was under the impression that in any case of suicide for the sole purpose of the benefits paid, the insurance policy was null, or in some cases, the insurance company would return the premiums already paid. In the case of George Bailey, that would have been a mere $500, not enough to save the business.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which part are you denying? That George Bailey should have known that insurance companies don't pay on suicides, or that insurance companies don't pay on suicides?

I hope you did not take my comment as rude. Looking at it now it seems that way to me. Sorry.


Life insurance does pay for suicides.

Life insurance does not pay the murder.

 

[RobRoy]

I hope you did not take my comment as rude. Looking at it now it seems that way to me. Sorry.

Not at all . . . or rather, I generally give the benefit of the doubt, even on the short and curt/sweet responses.

Life insurance does pay for suicides.

As I said, my understanding was that insurance did not payout if the primary motive for the suicide was the payout. It has to be proved, of course, but current laws allow a year or two before the company is required to pay, and any company worth their term life has fraud investigators who do nothing but save the company from paying. In some cases, when payout was the motive, the company is only required to return any premiums that were already received.

For full disclosure, I only have limited knowledge of the insurance industry and will bow to anyone else who had a more intimate and familiar understanding. This is just what my talking to someone in the industry yeilded while watching Double Indemnity.

Life insurance does not pay the murder.

This I was also very much not aware of. Interesting, but not germane to the discussion. What's the rationale behind this?

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
As I said, my understanding was that insurance did not payout if the primary motive for the suicide was the payout. It has to be proved, of course, but current laws allow a year or two before the company is required to pay. In some cases, when payout was the motive, the company is only required to return any premiums that were already received.
*snip*

I´m not sure how things are where you live, but I´ve worked in life assurance in Germany for a while. Over here, the insurance company does pay if a specified time has passed since the insurance was taken out - I think it is three years. After this period, I am pretty sure insurance companies have to pay.

On the other hand, accident insurance does not have to pay in case of suicide.


ETA:
In case of murder, both life and accident insurance would have to pay, although IIRC the guilty party (if caught) cannot become recipient of the money.

 

[RobRoy]

I´m not sure how things are where you live, but I´ve worked in life assurance in Germany for a while. Over here, the insurance company does pay if a specified time has passed since the insurance was taken out - I think it is three years. After this period, I am pretty sure insurance companies have to pay.

I understand that they pay in the event of a suicide, if the policy has reached a certain maturity level (two years in most US states). My understanding is that they do not have to pay if the primary motive is the payout, and it can be proved.

If that caveat is not correct, then I will, of course, admit that I am wrong.

 

[hgc]

The government in America was designed to secure the rights of the individual, the collective has no rights.

Design has nothing to do with it. Rights are like Forest Gump's "stupid" -- they is as they does.

If John Galt wants to take his magic motor and go live in a secret valley, that's his right -- unless the collective can bring enough force to take it away and use it for their own nefarious purposes. Then the collective has the right.

 

[Distracted1]

My initial reaction to the OP was that they were opposites. I now think that you are correct. Thanks.

The veneer is different, not the substance.

I disagree. From what I remember of "Atlas Shrugged" , sacrifice for another is "Objectivism's" biggist sin.

John Galt would consider it immoral to sacrifice his own desires for acheivement for the sake of anyone else's- including a brother, uncle, or wife.

Galt would surely find more to admire in the actions of "Mr. Potter" who was using his superior resourses and business acumen to slowly monopolise all of the towns businesses- thus turning the "rabble" into his own private feifdom.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Design has nothing to do with it. Rights are like Forest Gump's "stupid" -- they is as they does.

If John Galt wants to take his magic motor and go live in a secret valley, that's his right -- unless the collective can bring enough force to take it away and use it for their own nefarious purposes. Then the collective has the right.

Might makes right is nothing more than mob rule which is in essence anarchy.

Ability does not give the right.

 

[Distracted1]

Okay, I'll bite.
What does give the right?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Okay, I'll bite.
What does give the right?

The individual is born with rights. The collective only has privileges given to it by individuals. Those privileges given to the collective can never supersede the rights of the individual.

 

[Distracted1]

I accept that.
"Life, Liberty, the Persuit of Happiness..et..al.."

To secure these rights governments are instituted among man...then all hell breaks loose.

How do the priveledges of the collective never supercede the rights of the individual though?
We punish criminals...actually ,calling them criminals, we strip them of most of their rights (up to and sometimes including their right to life)-as a collective, and consider it justified. Is that not an instance of the priveledges of the collective superceding the rights of the individual?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I accept that.
"Life, Liberty, the Persuit of Happiness..et..al.."

To secure these rights governments are instituted among man...then all hell breaks loose.

How do the priveledges of the collective never supercede the rights of the individual though?
We punish criminals...actually ,calling them criminals, we strip them of most of their rights (up to and sometimes including their right to life)-as a collective, and consider it justified. Is that not an instance of the priveledges of the collective superceding the rights of the individual?

The criminal has encroached the rights of an individual. The proper role of government (given this role by individuals) is to remedy the encroachment.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To secure these rights governments are instituted among man...then all hell breaks loose.

Fantastic line. Cheers!

 

[hgc]

The individual is born with rights. The collective only has privileges given to it by individuals. Those privileges given to the collective can never supersede the rights of the individual.

Which rights are individuals born with? Since you are so certain of this, I assume you can give a list.