• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question regarding Atlas Shrugged

Is it OK for businesses to strike

  • Total voters
    19
Redress said:
Where there is demand, there are always people who will supply that demand.
Click to expand...

That's great and all, but you still have to deal with the time from when the businesses went on strike to when someone came along and took their place. The effect felt by society because of the strike would be a considerable factor on how long that took.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If it's OK for workers to strike when they are unfairly treated by business, then is it OK for businesses to strike when unfairly treated by government?

I didn't read the book, and only saw the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, but in both, major corporations just shut down, on strike, when the government kept pushing them.

I thought about this idea after seeing the Walmart strike thread.
Click to expand...

No reason why a business can't strike, but I also don't see a reason why they'd want to. A strike would be more harmful to a business than helpful. I can't see any individual business that would cause significant disturbance by going on strike without damaging its own reputation.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
That may have been one side issue of the book...but the main thrust of the book was "us vs. them"...and the 'us' were she portrayed as the right-thinking people, as opposed to the 'them', the lazy good-for-nothings who were running the world into the ground.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was. What people might not know is that there is actually real world examples of places where people were used by the community at large and as a result they left. It's not something that could probably happen on a large scale like all of the US, but it has happened on much smaller scales before.
 
Nilly said:
No reason why a business can't strike, but I also don't see a reason why they'd want to. A strike would be more harmful to a business than helpful. I can't see any individual business that would cause significant disturbance by going on strike without damaging its own reputation.
Click to expand...
Well, in the movie, the government laid down regulations that completely tied the hands of business. In an attempt to keep the economy going, businesses could not... lets see if I recall this correctly... could not raise prices, wages, or employment levels. Had to manufacture a given rate rather than what demand dictated.

I don't remember all the details, but laws were passed to make industry slave to government.

There would be no reason for industry to do such today, unless the progressives get their socialist ways.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you serious?

Often, regulations and taxes. How many businesses fail just because they cannot compete with cheaper imports? Imports have added shipping costs, but lower costs bringing products to market.
Click to expand...

Completely serious. Regulation and taxes while occasionally burdensome are not inherently unfair.
 
Winchester said:
Completely serious. Regulation and taxes while occasionally burdensome are not inherently unfair.
Click to expand...

So being told how much I am to pay my workers isn't unfair? Being told I must negotiate with people when they blackmail me isn't unfair? Being acted on when I did nothing wrong isn't unfair? Really? I think we have a very different definition of the word fair.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Well, in the movie, the government laid down regulations that completely tied the hands of business. In an attempt to keep the economy going, businesses could not... lets see if I recall this correctly... could not raise prices, wages, or employment levels. Had to manufacture a given rate rather than what demand dictated.

I don't remember all the details, but laws were passed to make industry slave to government.

There would be no reason for industry to do such today, unless the progressives get their socialist ways.
Click to expand...

You clearly have little knowledge of what progressives want.

Lord of Planar said:
I have been saying for years that the America I knew and grew up with is doomed to fail. My reasons are because of the "me, me, me" attitude of voters.
Click to expand...

This is quite ironic seeing as Ayn Rands (and a lot of libertarians who subscribe to her views) quite unabashed personal philosophy is essentially "me me me".
 
Henrin said:
That's great and all, but you still have to deal with the time from when the businesses went on strike to when someone came along and took their place. The effect felt by society because of the strike would be a considerable factor on how long that took.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but should one large business close it's doors, how long until others can pick up the slack?

What type of lead time do you think there is?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that it would come from outside the industry? If the big 3 go on strike, the foreign automakers are just going to smile and rake in the profits. If grocery stores go on strike, other stores will have coolers in before the say is out. And that is assuming you could get all of an industry to shut down, which ain't happening because some one would smell profits and stay open. Successful businessmen know better than to cut off their nose to spite their face.
 
Nilly said:
You clearly have little knowledge of what progressives want.
Click to expand...
Really?

Why do so many liberal/progressive agendas cost tax payers more? I see is more and more desire for bigger governments, hence more tax dollars. I see more demand for programs to subsidize others.

What do progressives want that do not require government revenues to increase?

Nilly said:
This is quite ironic seeing as Ayn Rands (and a lot of libertarians who subscribe to her views) quite unabashed personal philosophy is essentially "me me me".
Click to expand...
If you mean that I believe I can spend my money better than government, then yes.

I recognize government is needed. We simply have far more government than is needed.
 
Henrin said:
Which is essentially what happened in the book.
Click to expand...

but it's unlikely to happen in real life.

It could, of course, there is no law against it or anything. It's just that big businesses already have a lot of influence in Washington, and small businesses are, well, too small to be able to carry it off successfully.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, it was. What people might not know is that there is actually real world examples of places where people were used by the community at large and as a result they left. It's not something that could probably happen on a large scale like all of the US, but it has happened on much smaller scales before.
Click to expand...

Let's take you at your word for a moment that there are some real-world examples. Yeah, maybe it's happened on a small scale...but you yourself admit that it probably couldn't happen on a large scale...and I'd agree that given the range of human personalities and psychologies that are present in every community large or small, this is something that simply could not happen on a large scale...

...which completely dissolves the relevancy of Rand's book.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You mean like the several that did in Atlas Shrugged?
Click to expand...

You are aware that Atlas Shrugged is not a history book, right? It's a piece of very badly written fiction.
 
Most businesses operate on debt.


They could no more afford to strike than the guy living paycheck to paycheck could afford to.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but should one large business close it's doors, how long until others can pick up the slack?

What type of lead time do you think there is?
Click to expand...

Virtually none. The demand will still be there and customers will just look elsewhere for a supply. It might take a little time, depending on the industry and the products, for the supply to again meet the demand but you won't find the government acquiescing to corporate demands, simply because they're holding their breath until they turn blue. Any company that does this is committing corporate suicide.
 
Cephus said:
You are aware that Atlas Shrugged is not a history book, right? It's a piece of very badly written fiction.
Click to expand...

written so poorly that millions encourage others to read it.
 
Cephus said:
The same is true of books like Twilight. Doesn't make them good.
Click to expand...

Come on, teenage vampires and werewolves falling in love is a literary giant. :lol:

How this wretched mess made it to such heights of popularity scares me.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really?

Why do so many liberal/progressive agendas cost tax payers more? I see is more and more desire for bigger governments, hence more tax dollars. I see more demand for programs to subsidize others.

What do progressives want that do not require government revenues to increase?
Click to expand...

Personally I do support many agendas that would cost tax payers more. That however doesn't mean I want to dictate the production output, the number of employees, the exact wages that businesses have to abide by a la Ayn Rand's novels. Your argument ad absurdum was just that, absurd.

Lord of Planar said:
If you mean that I believe I can spend my money better than government, then yes.

I recognize government is needed. We simply have far more government than is needed.
Click to expand...

I meant exactly what I said. 'Me, me, me' is the basis of Ayn Rands entire philosophy. She wallows in selfishness and egoism, while not recognizing that personal sacrifice can be a net benefit to society and ultimately, yourself.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If it's OK for workers to strike when they are unfairly treated by business, then is it OK for businesses to strike when unfairly treated by government?

I didn't read the book, and only saw the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, but in both, major corporations just shut down, on strike, when the government kept pushing them.

I thought about this idea after seeing the Walmart strike thread.
Click to expand...

I've read the book a number of times over my life and I've seen the movies once. I recommend you read the book.

My simple answer to your question is, yes...it is okay for businesses to strike.

In the book, government wasn't simply treating businesses unfairly. Government had, in fact, taken control of all decision making away from those who owned businesses...and then demanded that those owners make the business work. Those business owners who "went on strike"...stopped working, that is...were breaking the law. So, it wasn't a step taken to make a statement or influence lawmakers. It was a conscious decision to not take part in the system placed upon them by the government. In effect, they walked away from their business and let the government have it.

We are not at that point in real life...yet. But we just might get there. Government has taken similar steps against individuals and businesses with Obamacare.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There may be some truth in that.

What I have seen over the last several decades, is that voters don't vote for what is best for society as much as they vote for what is best for them. I believe to protect from the lazy harming the world, we need to regulate voting. My libertarian side hates regulation until they become necessary, and I believe this may become necessary. We need to disallow voting by people who rely on subsidies. All they ever vote for are politicians and measures that give them more of other people's money.

I have been saying for years that the America I knew and grew up with is doomed to fail. My reasons are because of the "me, me, me" attitude of voters.
Click to expand...

Guy, we ALL depend upon subsidies...or haven't you eaten any bread lately, since we share the benefit of low prices thanks to the subsidies we pay wheat farmers? If anybody who got subsidies couldn't vote, most of our farmers couldn't vote. Most of our elderly couldn't vote (Medicare/Medicaid). Anybody whose children got reduced-cost lunches at school couldn't vote. Anybody who went on unemployment because they were laid off after their company went out of business couldn't vote...which means you're disenfranchising people because their employers didn't know how to run a business properly.

And then there's the taxpayer-supported state colleges - the students pay lower prices thanks to those tax dollars, so I guess they couldn't vote, either. And then there's those who serve in the military - we got lower prices at the commissary, free housing, and so forth. Sure, you might try to label those as 'benefits' - but in reality, they're subsidies.

And then there's the victims of disasters - they couldn't vote, either. And women who were stuck with the children and had to go on public assistance because their husbands decided to leave couldn't vote, either. The list goes on and on.

In other words, guy, what you're proposing is a can of worms that you really don't want to open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom