"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Bern80]

You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers. A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.

It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.

It should also go without saying to no one does it alone. Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing. It's willful blindness that puts them in the same class as the Marxists, since both philosophies would require a basic change in human nature to work.

Of course no one does it alone. Hence why people agree to engage in various transactions all the time for mutual benefit. Rand's point is that I don't owe you anything just because you've been sucking air longer than me.

 

[QUENTIN]

You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices. Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.

But what if this isn't true?

One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.

If everyone has the equal opportunity to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.

We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.

...

It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.

Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal. That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.

If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.

If we avoid the mental/physical impairment entirely, we can focus on merely their circumstances, which many more people find themselves in. They're born dirt poor to one bad parent in a place where the available education is woefully inadequate and job prospects are all bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of what one can contribute, earn, or get out of their work. An individual born into those circumstances, which are entirely beyond their control, can work their ass off from the time they're 13 and is statistically quite unlikely to ever make much more than minimum wage, be able to buy their own home, be able to afford quality health insurance or plan for a decent retirement.

Meanwhile someone born into the other circumstances I mentioned, to a family of great wealth and social standing, may barely have to lift a finger and is automatically afforded an education at the best schools and colleges in the nation, a high-paying job, and is statistically likely to be wealthy their entire lives, able to afford all the necessities and the finer things and be quite comfortable from cradle to grave.

Like the role nature and nurture play in an individual's personal development, behavior and choices and also circumstances entirely beyond their control both play a significant role in a person's success. It would be wrong to discount the responsibility has for the choices they make, it is just as wrong to discount how much is out of their hands though and how much is gifted to the lucky (particularly those inheriting wealth) that has nothing to do with behavior and choices and can play as great or even greater a role in whether they succeed financially.

The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and choices. In a utopia, sure, but not in real life. Many diehard "individualists" and the economically neo-liberal seem to accept as a matter of faith that hard work is rewarded and people end up where they do essentially because they deserve their success or failure. That's just not realistic given the world we live in.

 

[Bern80]

But what if this isn't true?

One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.

If you want to help the less fortunate, go ahead and help them. There is no Randian objection to charity. The point is one one should be free to choose to give as opposed to being forced to be charitable. And there is no need to fear that if government doesn't make people, they wouldn't be. The evidence is everywhere that the private sector is far more generous and charitable and helping of people than the government.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.

If everyone has the equal opportunity to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.

We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.

...

It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.

Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal. That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.

If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.

If we avoid the mental/physical impairment entirely, we can focus on merely their circumstances, which many more people find themselves in. They're born dirt poor to one bad parent in a place where the available education is woefully inadequate and job prospects are all bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of what one can contribute, earn, or get out of their work. An individual born into those circumstances, which are entirely beyond their control, can work their ass off from the time they're 13 and is statistically quite unlikely to ever make much more than minimum wage, be able to buy their own home, be able to afford quality health insurance or plan for a decent retirement.

Meanwhile someone born into the other circumstances I mentioned, to a family of great wealth and social standing, may barely have to lift a finger and is automatically afforded an education at the best schools and colleges in the nation, a high-paying job, and is statistically likely to be wealthy their entire lives, able to afford all the necessities and the finer things and be quite comfortable from cradle to grave.

Like the role nature and nurture play in an individual's personal development, behavior and choices and also circumstances entirely beyond their control both play a significant role in a person's success. It would be wrong to discount the responsibility has for the choices they make, it is just as wrong to discount how much is out of their hands though and how much is gifted to the lucky (particularly those inheriting wealth) that has nothing to do with behavior and choices and can play as great or even greater a role in whether they succeed financially.

The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and choices. In a utopia, sure, but not in real life. Many diehard "individualists" and the economically neo-liberal seem to accept as a matter of faith that hard work is rewarded and people end up where they do essentially because they deserve their success or failure. That's just not realistic given the world we live in.

Of course the playing field doesn't start even. You don't control where you start, but as long as you have free will, you very much control the end. Will it be harder for some than for others? Of course. But regardless of the difficulty level, I don't owe anyone less fortunate than me anything. Maybe you would consider yourself one of the more fortunate, but it's a matter of degree and I'm sure there are people more fortunate than you and me as well. Would you really walk up to them and proclaim they owe you something? That they have an obligation to you before they fulfill any desires of their own? How can you claim from them what you have not earned from them?

 

[QUENTIN]

Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago. What a big movie weekend.

You say Easter weekend like it's a bad thing. The box-office take this week was better over this Easter weekend than it was last weekend when the film debuted or either of the last two weeks before that making it the biggest box-office weekend in April. Easter is usually is a stronger weekend than average.

I mean, you're essentially just continuing to show that you don't know much about what you're talking about when it comes to movie release strategies, box-office performance, distribution, etc. and how the film is performing in context.

The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total, with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more theaters. If it had increased its gross and maintained its per screen average in keeping with a wider release, it might have a chance to make back its money. As it is, the film is a bomb that will be a loss for its producers and is seriously unlikely to result in two more sequels unless they're drastically lower-budgeted and go straight-to-DVD, with even that being a gamble.

I wrote the obit for the film when it was clear it was dead, which it is. Now that it's tried an expansion and done worse, it has demonstrated the movie has no legs and can't continue to expand to reach a broader audience. Apparently the majority who wanted to see it saw it opening weekend and even that was very few people.

At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major phenomenon as the OP and many others predicted and that it's at least a financial (beyond critical which can be dismissed if you like) failure? 2 more weeks? 10? A Year? Movies are made or broken by their first couple weeks in release these days and the direction this one went is quite clear from the numbers. Do you seriously expect that somewhere down the near line this film is going to blow up and be a cultural phenomenon and major hit and play a role in unseating the president (or even, at this point, making its financiers their investment back)? If so, your expectations are unrealistic given the indie film market and this film's performance.

Okay. So tell me, when a movie costs around 10m to make, and you make 30% of your money back in 2 weeks, is it a flop?

Yes, a movie making back only 30% of its budget in 2 weeks of release is considered a colossal flop.

Of movies in the top 10 right now, Rio has made 300+% of its budget back in 2 weeks in release. Tyler Perry's latest Madea movie has made 250% of its budget back in 1 week in release. Water for Elephants made 45% of its money back in 1 week in release (which means it will likely disappoint). Hop made 230% of its budget back in 4 weeks in release. Scream 4 made 75% of its budget back in 2 weeks (and is considered a failure, with plans to continue the franchise now scrapped as a result). Soul Surfer made 155% of its budget back in 3 weeks in release. Hanna made 103% of its budget back in 3 weeks (and is considered a serious disappointment). Insidious, which is an indie movie made for only 1.5 million, has made 2,933% of its budget back in 4 weeks in release and is considered a major success. Source Code has made 190% of its budget back in 4 weeks in release.

Nearly all successful films make their entire budgets back within the first two weeks of release because that is when the overwhelming majority of audiences will see the film and thus when it will make most of its money. Especially for the studios, distributors, and financiers because on opening weekend 75-85% of the box-office gross typically goes to the studios and backers while usually after the second week the profit sharing switches to 65-80% of the gross going to the exhibitors (the theaters).

Small indie films that opt for a rollout release strategy often follow a different model where they initially play in only a handful to a couple hundred theaters and then, if their success in limited release warrants it, will go wide and make the majority of their money then (in their first two weeks in wide release). Recent indie films with similar budgets to Atlas Shrugged like Black Swan, Little Miss Sunshine, and Juno have followed that path where their tremendous success in a limited number of theaters led to them expanding to 1,000-2,000 theaters and making most of their money then. However, when a film performs poorly even in limited release, that's a sign it will only lose more money if expanded into more theaters so that never happens and the film disappears without making its money back - or in other words is a failure.

Don't over 75% of all films drop off the second week, even with screen increases? Got numbers on that?

It's higher than 75% actually. The vast majority of movies drop off the second week...however, not with screen increases. The whole point of a platform release is for a film to prove itself in a small number of theaters so that it's worth the investment of expanding it to more where it can and will most likely reach a broader audience. Movies that play in substantially more theaters in a second or third week of release, the ones that are successes, continue to make more money each time they expand to more theaters. So for indie films that follow this path, no, the majority make more money in more theaters. If they don't, it's a sign that expanding them is pointless and will only end up costing the distributors more, increasing their loss. In 50% more theaters, Atlas lost 50% of its gross/audience, proving itself unfit for a broader audience and demonstrating, based on nearly every precedent there is in the indie film market, that it has already made most of the money it will and capitalized on the majority of people willing to see it and it's all downhill from here.

How many weeks did Titanic take to make back it's quarter of a billion production costs? 5-7 weeks IIRC, Then it had a MASSIVELY long run which then made it the highest grossing film of all time. That record may not still stand, but.. it lasted for more than a few years.

Titanic took 4 weeks to make back its $200 million dollar budget, but it made roughly $50 million dollars a week each of those 4 weeks of release and made 25% more the second week when it expanded to 30% more theaters. That film made more than $30 million dollars every week for its first 9 weeks in release, justifying why it continued to play in theaters and maintained the top spot at the box-office for 15 consecutive weeks, a feat not matched since (although Avatar made more money overall). Titanic is certainly a spectacular outlier, but it conforms to the same general principle at the box-office that all movies do: so long as it continues to make lots of money, it warrants continued exhibition. If a film doesn't make lots of, or barely any, money, then its exhibition is cut short because it's not worth keeping it in theaters anymore. Movies that make less than 3 million dollars in 2 weeks despite an expanded release and with mediocre per-screen-averages are never going to make much more than that.

My first post on this thread? I never agreed with the OP's premise. I just maintain that reports of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated by people like you having heart palpitations and flop sweat over it's desired abject failure. I think it will have a similar effect on public culture as "Expelled" and other similar size release that faced massive mainstream liberal hatred. Will it have long lasting effects? Possibly. Depends on if it becomes a cult classic. Is "Rocky Horror" a flop? How about "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?

Expelled is a better comparison to Atlas Shrugged than Titanic or the like and its performance tells us a lot about Atlas's chances. That film cost only $3.5 million and made $3.9 million its first week in limited release, $2 million the next week, then dropped off about 50% of its audience and screens every subsequent week to finish with 7.5 million total. If you'll notice, it made more than half its total gross the first weekend in release (and more than its total budget), its mild success warranted another week in the same number of theaters, it dropped off half after that and its run and gross was more or less over after that. That's the quite common trajectory of movies that aren't really "successful" and never approach phenomenon status, but perform respectably and provide at least a return on investment.

Atlas Shrugged by contrast cost $20 million (IMDb, Wikipedia, Box-Office Mojo, and The Hollywood Reporter are all now in agreement on that figure, $10 million was merely the planned budget and the film went well over during production and post) and made less than 2 million or 10% of its budget its first week in release and despite an increase in theaters less than a million in the following week. It thus has no chance of recouping its budget in theaters or even approaching earning half its budget back (in all likelihood, it will finish around $5 million).

From the 30s to the late 70s, it was normal and expected that a film play for several weeks and make back its money gradually as it played around the country, often moving from one geographical market to another earning new money from new audiences over time. Since the late 70's (largely as a result of Jaws and Star Wars and the blockbuster phenomenon) and especially in the last 15-20 years, films open nationally and only play in theaters for a few weeks and are expected to make back most of their money in their first week or two and tend to drop off dramatically after that as new films enter the market and take over their theater space, with the vast majority having what they earn after 3 weeks be relatively insignificant and constantly dwindling until they're finally yanked from theaters because what they're earning doesn't justify the cost of screening anymore. Indie films playing in limited release at specialty theaters often have longer shelf lives, but again, only if they're making enough to warrant it and have per-screen averages much higher than $1,900 and relatively little total drop off week-to-week or an increase if their theater count increases. Shrugged also suffers from having a much higher budget than most indie limited releases, which tend to cost under $5 million (often substantially less) if they have no stars and not much more than $10 million if they do (even star-studded successes like Crash, Juno, and Little Miss Sunshine were all made for $6-8 million). If it was truly low budget it could likely recoup its cost, but investing $20 million in the picture was a crazy gamble that practically doomed it to failure.

As for becoming a cult film, it's possible given that its small niche audience is rather devoted, but even a movie like Rocky Horror that failed upon initial release and only became a cult movie a year later, made back its small budget within 3 weeks playing in only a few dozen theaters before going on to be the longest-running movie ever. It's also of note that in modern times, no film has become a cult phenomenon approaching anything like Rocky Horror or The Gods Must Be Crazy. It's extremely rare, almost unheard of, for a film that initially fails at the box-office to be re-released in theaters much less then become a success. When a film becomes a cult hit these days, that means it finds an audience on home video/VOD/online. Which brings me to my next point...

And this hasn't hit DVD release yet where most movies (especially small release films) now make the majority of it's money thanks to the consuming public's habits. I see maybe 70 movies a year. Only 1-3 of them in a theater, often second run. All the rest is on dvd. I wonder what will happen if they manage to get a global release? I've no idea if they'll even be able to, but it's a curious thought since it is such an Amerocentric film.

Your continued contention, despite all evidence to the contrary and your personal anecdotes, that films (even smaller releases) make more money on DVD than in theaters is just not true. Expelled being the best example (also financed independently, released by the same niche market distribution company, also lacking stars, targeted to appeal to some faction of the American right) made $7.5 million in theaters and then $1.5 million on DVD. That's pretty successful home video figures for an indie movie, but as you see it's a small fraction of not greater than its box-office. As I said, an indie movie that grosses $100 million at the box-office is lucky to make $15 million on DVD (Black Swan made $106 million at the box-office and $12 million on DVD for example). The most successful DVD of the last few years, Avatar, made a whopping $190 million on DVD, but that's still just a quarter of its domestic box-office and less than 10% its total box-office. Even Finding Nemo, the best-selling DVD ever, made less on home video than it did in theaters. Making more on DVD than in theaters is an exceptionally rare occurrence and far from the norm or what "most movies" do. Clerks, which is considered one of the most successful cult movies of all-time and is among the top indie home video releases in history, among those rare films that made substantially more on home video than in theaters (and which made 141,480% of its budget back in theaters, never playing on more than 100 screens) has made just under $12 million on VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-ray combined over the course of 16 years.

It would take a literal miracle, it would be entirely alone in its class and absolutely unprecedented, for Atlas Shrugged to make the necessary $10-15 million dollars on DVD to even earn it back its cost much less become a success and provide any return on investment. If it's a truly tremendous success on video, that would mean taking in something like $3-5 million and it's more likely to make less than half that.

As for worldwide release, there are no plans to release the film theatrically outside of the US. The novel the film is based on is very successful, controversial, and well-known within the US but that success is more or less confined to the US in part due to the "Americocentricity" you mentioned. The distributor, Rocky Mountain Pictures, has little to no experience distributing to foreign markets.

So rail away on your false premise.

Ultimately what this comes down to is a series of false premises and suppositions on your part (each of them easy to debunk). I understand that, you clearly don't know anything about how the independent film market or distribution works, most people don't and have no reason to. But I'm intimately familiar (it's my field) and have provided ample explanation, examples and proof to demonstrate that continuing to believe this film is anything but a financial failure is purely wishful thinking on the part of those who want it to succeed. I understand that too, there are dozens of independent films released each year that I love and hope reach a broader audience only to be dismayed by their failure. But it is divorced from reality to suggest the movie didn't bomb or to hold out hope it still has a realistic chance at success.

 

[QUENTIN]

We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.

...

It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.

Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal. That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.

If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.

If we avoid the mental/physical impairment entirely, we can focus on merely their circumstances, which many more people find themselves in. They're born dirt poor to one bad parent in a place where the available education is woefully inadequate and job prospects are all bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of what one can contribute, earn, or get out of their work. An individual born into those circumstances, which are entirely beyond their control, can work their ass off from the time they're 13 and is statistically quite unlikely to ever make much more than minimum wage, be able to buy their own home, be able to afford quality health insurance or plan for a decent retirement.

Meanwhile someone born into the other circumstances I mentioned, to a family of great wealth and social standing, may barely have to lift a finger and is automatically afforded an education at the best schools and colleges in the nation, a high-paying job, and is statistically likely to be wealthy their entire lives, able to afford all the necessities and the finer things and be quite comfortable from cradle to grave.

Like the role nature and nurture play in an individual's personal development, behavior and choices and also circumstances entirely beyond their control both play a significant role in a person's success. It would be wrong to discount the responsibility has for the choices they make, it is just as wrong to discount how much is out of their hands though and how much is gifted to the lucky (particularly those inheriting wealth) that has nothing to do with behavior and choices and can play as great or even greater a role in whether they succeed financially.

The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and choices. In a utopia, sure, but not in real life. Many diehard "individualists" and the economically neo-liberal seem to accept as a matter of faith that hard work is rewarded and people end up where they do essentially because they deserve their success or failure. That's just not realistic given the world we live in.

Of course the playing field doesn't start even. You don't control where you start, but as long as you have free will, you very much control the end. Will it be harder for some than for others? Of course. But regardless of the difficulty level, I don't owe anyone less fortunate than me anything. Maybe you would consider yourself one of the more fortunate, but it's a matter of degree and I'm sure there are people more fortunate than you and me as well. Would you really walk up to them and proclaim they owe you something? That they have an obligation to you before they fulfill any desires of their own? How can you claim from them what you have not earned from them?

If one's expression of their free will is limited by limited options beyond their control, particularly the inability to get a good education (generally speaking, the poorer the community, the worse the public schools are and private schools are unaffordable to them) - quality education being the great equalizer of opportunity - then they do not control the end. A kid born poor and failed by the school system and their environment is most likely to fail despite working very hard unless another factor beyond their control - remarkable luck - is on their side.

I'm not even making the argument that you owe anyone else anything or have an obligation to provide for the less fortunate. All I'm saying is that your ethical justification for why those who succeed succeed and those who fail fail - that it is a result of their behavior and choices and predominately determined by what they have control over - is false.

I would consider myself very fortunate. I was born into a lower-middle class family but had loving, hard-working parents willing to sacrifice, work multiple jobs and incur debt in order to ensure I had the best possible education (a choice they made, but not one I did, something I had no control over). I was also naturally bright, lived in a safe and supportive environment, had substantial encouragement from mentor figures in addition to family and more than a little luck in who I encountered and made connections with. I also worked hard my entire life and can attribute much of my eventual success to my own efforts, but if I'd not been gifted with all the beneficial opportunities entirely beyond my control it's highly unlikely no matter how hard I worked that I'd have been able to achieve anything close to what I have and I recognize that too.

Life isn't fair and that's basically a fact of life. Some people will be born with every advantage imaginable and others with every disadvantage imaginable. Even those disadvantaged in America are exponentially better off than someone born with AIDS in a refugee camp in Swaziland who has basically no options or control over their lives. Though I'd obviously prefer a world where everyone had equal opportunities and their choices truly were the only or most significant contributing factor to where they wound up, that's not the world we live in. My point (again, not at all about what's owed to anyone or obligations placed on the fortunate or anything of the like) is just that you ignore that obvious and accurate truism about life and create a patently false image of the world and its degree of actual meritocracy when you pretend that possessing "free will" means that one's station in life is only or even predominately a result of what they have control over.

It's one thing to say those who succeed have no obligation to those who don't, it's entirely another to say those who succeed and those who don't deserve their success of failure and have such control over it.

 

[ginscpy]

I don't recall reading it High School Humanities class - I would have used Cliffs Notes (my bread-and-butter) to write an essay on - like I did with Shakespeare and Moby Dick etc.......................

 

[Bern80]

If one's expression of their free will is limited by limited options beyond their control, particularly the inability to get a good education (generally speaking, the poorer the community, the worse the public schools are and private schools are unaffordable to them) - quality education being the great equalizer of opportunity - then they do not control the end. A kid born poor and failed by the school system and their environment is most likely to fail despite working very hard unless another factor beyond their control - remarkable luck - is on their side.

I'm not even making the argument that you owe anyone else anything or have an obligation to provide for the less fortunate. All I'm saying is that your ethical justification for why those who succeed succeed and those who fail fail - that it is a result of their behavior and choices and predominately determined by what they have control over - is false.

No it isn't. Because what you are saying, simply said another way, is that it is simply not possible for certain people to achieve certain things. Barring those who truly 'can't', the mentally challenged or severely handicapped, your choices determine your outcomes. Again for some people it will be harder than for others, but part of it is also acknowledging what you do indeed have control over and many people refuse to do that. They take for granted the things they have control over. For example, while you may not be able to control the shitty environment you were born in or the shitty school you attend, you can control how hard you choose to work at that school. Simply being born in a certain environment does not mean a certain job or certain income level is simply walled off to you and impossible to reach. We know that isn't true because we know of all kinds of people that have come from literally nothing and the worst of conditions and achieved quite a bit income wise Marshall Mathers, Carl Crawford, Shania Twain, etc.

I would consider myself very fortunate. I was born into a lower-middle class family but had loving, hard-working parents willing to sacrifice, work multiple jobs and incur debt in order to ensure I had the best possible education (a choice they made, but not one I did, something I had no control over). I was also naturally bright, lived in a safe and supportive environment, had substantial encouragement from mentor figures in addition to family and more than a little luck in who I encountered and made connections with. I also worked hard my entire life and can attribute much of my eventual success to my own efforts, but if I'd not been gifted with all the beneficial opportunities entirely beyond my control it's highly unlikely no matter how hard I worked that I'd have been able to achieve anything close to what I have and I recognize that too.

Life isn't fair and that's basically a fact of life. Some people will be born with every advantage imaginable and others with every disadvantage imaginable. Even those disadvantaged in America are exponentially better off than someone born with AIDS in a refugee camp in Swaziland who has basically no options or control over their lives. Though I'd obviously prefer a world where everyone had equal opportunities and their choices truly were the only or most significant contributing factor to where they wound up, that's not the world we live in. My point (again, not at all about what's owed to anyone or obligations placed on the fortunate or anything of the like) is just that you ignore that obvious and accurate truism about life and create a patently false image of the world and its degree of actual meritocracy when you pretend that possessing "free will" means that one's station in life is only or even predominately a result of what they have control over.

It's one thing to say those who succeed have no obligation to those who don't, it's entirely another to say those who succeed and those who don't deserve their success of failure and have such control over it.

I do and have acknowledged that environment will play a role in how difficult life will be for you. What I don't accept is this notion that the outcome of your life is pre-destined by it because there are is all kinds of evidence to the contrary in the very people you claim should not have been able to achieve that did end up achieving anyway.

 

[peach174]

Seems the mistake they made was not enough copies of the movie and they are correcting it now.
The Hollywood left can't understand? Really?

Atlas Shrugged Movie Leaves Hollywood Scratching Its Head, Because It's Succeeding Without Them | Techdirt

Same thing happened with passion of the Christ.
The left really doesn't want this one to succeed because it changes the socialist mind.

 

[Big Fitz]

It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.

It should also go without saying to no one does it alone. Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing. It's willful blindness that puts them in the same class as the Marxists, since both philosophies would require a basic change in human nature to work.

Of course no one does it alone. Hence why people agree to engage in various transactions all the time for mutual benefit. Rand's point is that I don't owe you anything just because you've been sucking air longer than me.

Or because you just suck more.

 

[Big Fitz]

The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and choices.

Bullshit. Everyone does the best they can with what they are given when they are born. No one picks their parents, economic circumstances, or community. Like a poker player, you play the cards you're dealt and even a crappy hand, given enough skill and chutzpah can win.

You don't have anyone at the poker table going... okay, who's got nothing? All right, how many extra cards do you want, and put back the ones you don't.

This delusional need for complete 'fairness' from random chance is beyond the pale stupid. You want life balance? Play World of Warcraft and quit life.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal.

So you mean the average democrat?

That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.

Why?

90% of government workers have IQ's that hover around 90. If one is too low on the scale to work for government, McDonalds is always an option.

If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.

Have you read "Atlas Shrugged?" Rand praises the concept of charity, she simply states that it must be voluntary, the decision of the person providing it. Hank Rearden was very charitable in the book.

 

[QUENTIN]

Seems the mistake they made was not enough copies of the movie and they are correcting it now.
The Hollywood left can't understand? Really?

Atlas Shrugged Movie Leaves Hollywood Scratching Its Head, Because It's Succeeding Without Them | Techdirt

Same thing happened with passion of the Christ.
The left really doesn't want this one to succeed because it changes the socialist mind.

No, the same thing didn't happen with The Passion of The Christ. That was also financed and produced independently, but that made $83 million in its opening weekend alone on 3, 043 screens with a per screen average of $27,554. It was a massive cultural phenomenon and immediate, record-setting success. Compared to Shrugged's $1.5 million on 300 screens with a per screen average of $5, 500 then less than a million on 450 screens with a per screen average of merely $1,900 and... well, there is no comparison.

 

[EriktheRed]

Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review

 

[rightwinger]

Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review

So I guess Obama is not worried then

 

[Dante]

Who cares?

this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.

i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..

life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".

you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.

as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.

i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.

YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer

it looks good, no, great.

 

[boedicca]

Whether or not people see the movie is, at this moment in history, irrelevant.

We're LIVING Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Dante]

We're living in the real world while Randian Lunatics are living in a terribly written sophomoric Novel

 

[Dante]

ATLAS SNUBBED
The Unsanctioned Pastiche Parody
No one is asking, "Who is John Galt?" anymore... Because now, they know.

Atlas Snubbed - The Unsanctioned Pastiche Parody

 

[NYcarbineer]

Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review

I wonder if that negatively impacts the OP's commission for humping it all over the internet.

 

[Dante]

Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review

I wonder if that negatively impacts the OP's commission for humping it all over the internet.