The Troubled Economics of Ayn Rand

Economics Economics Questions
61

I commend you for finally doing some research. You didn’t get it quite right though: what you found is not “rule 291 for a stop signal.” If you thought about it, you’d realize that doesn’t make sense: why would one signal have two meanings? How would the railroad operators know which meaning applied in a given case?

The appearance of a railroad signal is called its aspect. The meaning of the signal is called its indication. For historical reasons, each indication corresponds to a numbered rule. Simply put, the list of signals is found in a document called a “rule book.” Rule 291 is the indication numbered 291 in the rule book. The indication is, “stop, then proceed.” Rule #292 is just plain “stop.” There is a different aspect for the two rules; they are NOT interchangeable. When the novel states that they obeyed a signal to STOP, we know that it wasn’t a signal to STOP, THEN PROCEED, because if it were, they’d already be proceeding.

I never said that, so you’re still not reading carefully. I said that in any given situation, ONE AND ONLY ONE signal will present the aspect with the STOP indication. That signal may or may not be protecting a switch, but the signal with the STOP indication is the last one before whatever it is you’re stopping for. Other signals may or may not be present before the one with the STOP indication. Those signals will NOT present a STOP indication. They may indicate “stop, then proceed,” or “be prepared to stop,” or “proceed, half speed,” or even “all clear.” But they will not indicate STOP; only one signal will indicate STOP.

This would all be clear if you realized that railways use block signaling. To prevent collisions, the network of rails is divided into blocks, and (in its basic form) only one train is allowed to occupy a block at one time. A STOP signal serves primarily to exclude a train from an occupied block (and occasionally other safety purposes). It serves no purpose to put another STOP signal further up the line, because trains are required to stop at the first STOP signal, and therefore will never see the next signal. You might think it prudent to “put another STOP signal further up the line, in case they missed the first one,” but that’s not how things were done. To signal a train to stop, ONE signal is set to the aspect indicating STOP. If that signal is visible from far enough back to permit the train to stop, there are usually no other signals. Otherwise–for example, on a curve–that signal will be protected by other signals, and those signals will be set to “prepare to stop,” or “proceed medium speed,” or “proceed slowly,” or “stop then proceed,” as the case may be, to ensure the train is able to stop when it reaches the STOP signal.

If you value objective thought, then you won’t cherry-pick facts to try and bolster a foregone conclusion. You’ll actually find out the correct facts, whether or not they agree with your original position. Taking that to heart will make you a better Objectivist.

–Len.

62

Exactly! I’ve said that a couple of times already myself. The only thing that makes this interesting, is that it reveals something important about the objectivity of the person who reacts so violently to the possibility that Rand blew a detail. If A is A, and existence exists, and facts are what don’t go away when you ignore them, then emotion has no place in the discussion: it’s a fact that she made an error. It might be an unimportant fact, but it’s a fact. And an Objectivist who rejects distasteful facts betrays his own philosophy.

Just a second. If I claimed to be the owner of the Allegheny Valley Railroad, what would that mean? It would be an appeal to authority, which is invalid logic. I could be lying about owning a railroad, or I could be lying about railway signaling, or I could be incorrectly extrapolating what I know about my railroad tothe rest of the continent. And even if I were right, owning a railroad doesn’t prove anything. Why would I resort to argumentum ad verecundiam?

Instead I made an assertion about checkable facts. He’d be within his rights asking me for sources, but he didn’t: he vehemently denied that I could possibly be right. He’d also be within his rights to refuse to check the facts, in which case he can justly say, “I reserve judgment,” but he didn’t: he vehemently denied that I could possibly be right. Or he could check the facts himself. At first he refused, vehemently denying that I could possibly be right. Eventually he made an attempt, and it was a good start–but he stopped at the first misunderstood fact that would seem to support his position. Why did he stop prematurely? I don’t know, but it might be related to his reason for denying so vehemently that I could possibly be right in the first place.

My interest is entirely focused on why he refuses to address the question objectively. The question itself is unimportant.

I can explain why I’m singling out objectivists: this is a thread about Ayn Rand. In a different discussion, it would be different: I’d single out socialists in a socialist thread; or statists in a statist thread; etc.

Of course others have this problem. Christians notably have it, and it’s a profound embarassment to me as a Christian. It means that in discussions, I often find people taking my side of the debate that I’m ashamed to be associated with, because they keep offering stupid arguments to support (what I consider to be) true conclusions. So much so that right on this forum I’ve been ridiculed for admitting to my religion, because the stereotype is so firmly ingrained that my religion makes me stpuid, anti-reason, etc. It’s probable that by offering that example, I’ve set the stage for you to reply with scorn as well, though I haven’t seen you show that sort of discourtesy before, so we’ll hope for the best.

Then again, according to Rand, Christians are mystics anyway. It’s no surprise if mystics get mystical, right? Why would one expect rationality from a mystic? So although Christians often use the worst illogic to support their beliefs, that’s only to be expected…

Which is why I’m especially hard on Objectivists. You folks uniquely claim to be guided by the light of reason. Therefore, it’s a much more serious offense when you transgress against reason, than when a mystic does it. Which is why I think your philosophy sets you up for failure, BTW: it makes logical lapses such a high crime that none dare admit to them–and hence, none dare correct them. It chains you to a foolish consistency, because contradicting anything you’ve said before demonstrates that you’re guilty of the highest crime an Objectivist can commit. So you’re under enormous pressure to stick with an error long after it’s been debunked. The main “Atlas Shrugged” demographic, college-aged males, are already vulnerable to that tendency, and the results are potentially disastrous.

For a rationalist philosophy to work, it must enshrine admitting mistakes as one of its highest values.

–Len.

By the way, I’m equally hard on evolutionists in “crevo” debates. Many people support the right conclusion (universal common descent) for all the wrong reasons. Since the heart of their position is that the scientific method is the standard of truth, departure from the scientific method makes one as bad as the most superstitious special-creationist. Worse, because the creationists will admit, at the end of the day, that they don’t care what the evidence says. The result is interesting: the evolutionists I criticize can’t stop resorting to the ad hominem that I’m a creationist, which I’m not. Like Rob, they’re resorting to religious means of dispelling their cognitive dissonance.

63

Actually, I’m not an Objectivist. I’ve been influenced by Rand’s modern libertarian take on Aristotelian philosophy and I came to libertarianism through Rand, but I deviate on too many things to consider myself one and I doubt many of them would have me as anything more than a fellow traveler at best.

It is a rather interesting difference between Rand and Aristotle that for Aristotle theoretical and practical wisdom are intellectual virtues (analytically distinct but not separable from the moral virtues) while for Rand reason, undifferentiated, is a moral virtue (she drops the distinction).

Incidentally, to those who were criticizing Rand unsuccessfully on her economics on this list: I wonder how many of them realize that she was quite familiar with Austrian economics? She even recommended Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Hazlitt, and Bastiat to her readers. There is a recommended reading list at the end Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal that includes them. It was through this that I discovered Mises and eventually the Mises Institute.

64

My bad: that was the generic “you.” If we were talking IRL, I’d say at this point, “not YOU! YA!” Doesn’t quite work when typed.

I’d regard objectivists as fellow travelers, except that they don’t regard me as such. Holding the non-aggression axiom isn’t enough; if ya don’t agree with their philosophy, ya’re no good. As Rothbard learned first-hand, for example. Not being an atheist, I’m a particularly disgusting specimen of the great unwashed. That would explain any angst that comes through (though I do try to keep it in check), as well as the special notice I take when they fall short of their own ideals.

Nevertheless, peace to all!

–Len.

65

I find it a bit presumptuous (& possibly collectivist) to put all Objectivists into the same boat… from what I’ve read of the Objectivist movement, there have been many forks since Rand has passed; the two major ones that come to mind being between the ARI & TAS (the TAS being started due to David Kelley being “out casted” for lecturing to libertarians, and declaring Objectivism as an open system, if I remember correctly).

I wouldn’t be surprised, if in fact, there are more divisions amid Objectivists, which, I myself find incredibly ironic, due to the collectivist nature of such divisions into said “camps”, or “sides”. I could be wrong though.

Also, I think Rothbard over-stated the case concerning Objectvism as a “cult”. I think a great deal of it has to do with a “cult of personality” of Rand herself, and due to this, it doesn’t in fact surprise me that a lot of forks & divisions seemed to have taken place after Rand passed on. I honestly think if Rand herself were around, she might be angry and/or bemused at what has happened.

I remember this occurring (concerning with political philosophy, or ideas of a certain author and/or philosopher) quite frequently in the past; one such example being those who continued on with socialism after Marx’s time.

Although, keep in mind, I am speaking from the observational perspective of a political & philosophical student, and not as an Objectivist.

However, because of the differences in opinions amid Objectivists, I see no harm in considering Rand’s ideas, just as one would consider Rothbard, Mises, Aristotle, etc.

This is why, offline, if my friends scoff at the mention of Rand, I counter that it’s small minded to simply dismiss somebody’s ideas based on some type of recent mythology & legend that may or may not have factual basis.

But then again, some individuals find conflict & drama appealing; otherwise, I don’t think reality television would’ve bothered sticking around this long :).

66

You are backsliding. The rule I found was exactly rule 291 and it contradicts your previous statements about stop signals. “Aspect” and “indication” are not mentioned in the book and you don’t know what the “aspect” and “indication” of the signal were…so you have no basis, nor even enough information to know whether Dagny made the right decision. I never said the rules were interchangeable; I merely pointed out that in some contexts rule 291 applies and that contradicts your point completely and shows that you are not being rational in your criticism of Rand. The point in question is that you said Dagny made a bad decision in ordering the conductor to proceed. The statement I made is that the signal was known not to be working and the switch was known not to be working. These are railroad people. They are capable of knowing such things. You, in your foregone conclusion stated that Dagny (or more specifically Rand) did not know anything about railroads. And you still have not realized that in that context, Rule 291 is the appropriate rule and Dagny followed it. You have to ask yourself why would they have a rule to proceed after a stop. Competent, experienced railroad people can make a decision based upon their knowledge and experience. You don’t know what the signal was specifically, you just know that it was a stop signal of some type, and, actually, it is not important to the story. It is nothing to make a point about because the context of the incident is not critical to the story…so there is no reason to be making an issue about it as you are doing. The problem is you are picking it apart to make a point negative about Ayn Rand when, in fact, there is no justification for your point except the desire to make that negative point. It is you who is cherry-picking facts.

You still haven’t revealed your railroad source for your statements about Dagny. You are still asking me to consider you an authority but each time I present evidence you merely parse words. Please provide the full context, the issues that Rand knows nothing about and a valid source that contradicts them. At this point, your “authority” appears to be only you and every time you write there is evidence that you appear not to have considered.

67

All generalizations are presumptuous. Not to mention wrong. That doesn’t make them useless, though. In this case, I protect my generalization from wrongness by never actually stating it: I merely assert that my opinion is that Objectivists often etc. etc.

It’s less useful than a statistically valid study, but handy as a heuristic. For example, it was helpful in diagnosing Rob’s problem quickly–and it also has predictive power. The model predicts that Rob will not objectively consider the issue of railway signalling, nor will ever concede that what I’ve told him is accurate. Instead he will cling to his originally stated position.

I don’t plan to keep arguing with him forever, but a couple more iterations will demonstrate that the model makes accurate predictions, once we’ve verified that the hypotheses apply.

–Len.

68

Len, you write:

“Which is why I’m especially hard on Objectivists. You folks uniquely claim to be guided by the light of reason. Therefore, it’s a much more serious offense when you transgress against reason, than when a mystic does it. Which is why I think your philosophy sets you up for failure, BTW: it makes logical lapses such a high crime that none dare admit to them–and hence, none dare correct them. It chains you to a foolish consistency, because contradicting anything you’ve said before demonstrates that you’re guilty of the highest crime an Objectivist can commit. So you’re under enormous pressure to stick with an error long after it’s been debunked. The main “Atlas Shrugged” demographic, college-aged males, are already vulnerable to that tendency, and the results are potentially disastrous.”

I have not made an error. I won’t admit an error until it is proven that I have. You have made some indications that you have knowledge but have not shown your sources. You assume knowledge about railroads and then are discredited by your own statements when it is proven that there is a rule that Dagny may have used. I point out your contradictions and you merely parse the contradictions. You have not proven that Dagny made a mistake and I have shown that you did not have enough information to know whether she did. Then you claim that when someone calls you on your statements that it is an indication that Objectivism is flawed and that your unfounded conclusions about me prove something endemic about Objectivism which has more to do with me than with Objectivism since I am not a spokesperson for the philosophy. I will admit that what I have done is a purely Objectivist thing which is to ask you to prove that you are right. You have not done so. There is evidence that Dagny made the right decision based upon the information the author provided.

The whole point of using reason is to make your knowledge consistent with reality. You claim you are using reason but the facts point to rationalization supporting a foregone conclusion…that there is a problem with Ayn Rand’s knowledge about railroads. The facts clearly point to the fact that Ayn Rand knew enough about railroads that she didn’t make a mistake in having Dagny tell the conductor to proceed. Then to support your inconsistency you VEHEMENTLY support yourself by attacking Objectivism when it has nothing to do with Objectivism…it has to do with reasoned argument and the rules for that existed before Objectivism. When you make a point you have to support it and you have not done that. But it is pretty obvious that the whole point of this thread was to attack Ayn Rand and Objectivism by making up some spurious arguments based upon the attacker’s limited knowledge of both railroads and reason. You’ve only proven you have an ax to grind. I would say that the above statement you made about Objectivism applies to you rather than Objectivists.

69

STOP, THEN PROCEED is a completely different signal from STOP. All they have in common is that the word “stop” is in there somewhere. It’s reflecting poorly on your rationality that you refuse to take delivery on the facts when I’ve explained them so carefully.

That’s correct. I mentioned them to start you on the road to understanding railway signaling, not because they’re in the book.

You’re mistaken: I don’t know the aspect of the signal in the novel, but I do know the indication. I know it because the train stopped, and didn’t proceed. There is only ONE indication that means “stop and don’t proceed.” A is A. Existence exists. And the train stopped, because a signal indicated that it should stop. You’re really doing yourself no good arguing at this point.

I don’t appeal to authorities. Is it possible to be an Objectivist without even knowing the basic logical fallacies so you can avoid them? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. If reason matters to you, you won’t ever apeal to authority. I don’t.

What I did instead was use correct railroad terminology. A rational reader needs nothing more than that to check my facts: Google is your friend. If you spent even five minutes with Google, the first thing you’ll realize is that there’s a lot to train signaling and scheduling that you don’t know at all–which, if you’re rational, will lead you to conclude that you must either get educated on the subject, or withhold opinion. Your best bet, if you’re too lazy to do any research, is to reply that you neither know nor care whether Rand got it right. You decided instead to take a position without research, and then defend it vehemently despite all information to the contrary. That doesn’t reflect well on your rationality, and it also irritates me–because I do double-check my facts, which means I spend much more energy responding to you than you do to me. In short, you’re wasting my time.

You haven’t asked. I carefully used correct terms, so you could find the information you seek with minimal effort. I didn’t link directly to any information, because I was curious whether you’d: demand evidence, which was your smartest strategy; do some research on your own, which would win my respect; or fly off half cocked, which would betray your rationalist, objectivist creed. You did my work for me by picking option C. In so doing you proved my observation that at least one Objectivist (namely you) claims to be guided by pure reason, even when you’re clearly not.

Now reread my original reply to you, in which I pointed out the religious fanatic quality of your post. From then until now, the topic has been whether you’re rational or religious, not how railway signals work. And you’ve answered the question at great length for me.

–Len.

70

gplauche writes:

"Incidentally, to those who were criticizing Rand unsuccessfully on her economics on this list: I wonder how many of them realize that she was quite familiar with Austrian economics? She even recommended Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Hazlitt, and Bastiat to her readers. There is a recommended reading list at the end Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal that includes them. It was through this that I discovered Mises and eventually the Mises Institute. "

This is quite true and in fact I was led to study the Austrain economists by Ayn Rand. I have most of the editions and especially enjoy Human Action. I do agree with Ayn Rand’s critique of the Austians. However, her disagreements were argued well and without nickpicking such as with this thread called “The Troubled Economics of Ayn Rand” which is in fact the same economics (for the most part) as von Mises, et al…but with her own arguments based on her premises. Her own arguments are the reason why Rand is still read today, and unfortunately, why the Austrians are not. I recommend the Austrians every chance I get.

71

Len wrote:

It’s less useful than a statistically valid study, but handy as a heuristic. For example, it was helpful in diagnosing Rob’s problem quickly–and it also has predictive power. The model predicts that Rob will not objectively consider the issue of railway signalling, nor will ever concede that what I’ve told him is accurate. Instead he will cling to his originally stated position.

–Len.

No you are, no you are, no you are, no you are…Sounds like you’re getting a little VEHEMENT, Len.

72

You’re playing fast and loose with the facts there. You did not ask me to prove anything: you vehemently asserted that I was wrong. There’s a world of difference between the two. If you are asking me to do so NOW, that’s great–but it doesn’t change the fact that your handling of the discussion was, hitherto, not as you describe it.

A review of our exchange makes it abundantly clear which of us has done the more careful research. I have discussed railroading in depth, and the assertions I’ve made are checkable. I’ve even used correct terms, to facilitate the Google search you never made. You have replied mostly with tirades. When you finally did a bit of research, it was obviously shoddy on its face: you referred to “Rule #291 for stop signals,” which prompts the question, “What are the first 290 rules for stop signals?” Or even, “What is the 290th rule for stop signals?” A check of your source reveals that Rule 290 is “proceed at restricted speed,” and has nothing to do with “stop signals.” I grant that you probably just misspoke. But that speaks to the shoddiness of your research.

Making your knowledge consistent with reality is usually done by the scientific method. Falsifiability is the heart of the method: an idea isn’t even a hypothesis in the first place if it isn’t falsifiable, and empirical verification includes testing predictions and attempting falsification. You never approached this question in that way, and my model predicts that you didn’t because discovering yourself mistaken would be an intolerable blow to your ego. You’ve gotten a good idea from Rand: finding out what’s true.

But you’ve failed to get a critical part of the process: finding and rejecting what is false. And my model further suggests that this is because Rand makes the critical error of believing that right methods always lead to right conclusions. That’s not true: right methods eventually lead to right conclusions. The difference is extremely important, because many Objectivists are forced to regard falsified hypotheses as evidence that their original method was flawed. In other words, if you ever consider a flawed hypothesis, it’s because you arrived at the hypothesis by irrational means, which makes you a heretic against Objectivism.

I really recommend you consider the golden rule I mentioned earlier: any rationalist philosophy worth a damn makes its highest virtue the ability to admit you were wrong, and throw away falsified hypotheses.

–Len.

73

Len, you write:

“Now reread my original reply to you, in which I pointed out the religious fanatic quality of your post. From then until now, the topic has been whether you’re rational or religious, not how railway signals work. And you’ve answered the question at great length for me.”

The topic was whether Dagny made the right decision and whether that decision means anything about Ayn Rand’s knowledge of railroads. The question about whether I’m rational or religious is your method of changing the subject. I have proven that there is good reason why Dagny made the right decision and because you are wrong in thinking otherwise, it invalidates your other statements about me and even Objectivism. You have still not supported your argument that Dagny made the wrong decision. You are merely parsing about irrelevant issues, signals and indications, etc. which are supposed to show you have some sort of ineffable knowledge that only you can figure out. They don’t prove that you are right in making your original attack on Rand. My argument stands; Dagny made the right decision. Even reality proves that there is a basis for Dagny’s decision. Can you still argue that there is no basis for her being right? If so, then it is you who is not being rational.

74

The saddest thing about a case like this is that you don’t realize how obvious it is to everyone that you’re fueled by emotion here, not reason. I stated a prediction. You proceed to fulfil it even after I share it with you because you just can’t help yourself.

Not only am I not vehement; I am in fact your well wisher. There’s no way out of this one that doesn’t involve you swallowing your pride, but I hope you manage to do it. You could have come out of this with pride intact by firmly keeping the burden of proof on me, and withholding your religious comments. But it’s too late for that. You can still end this in a stalemate by learning all you can about railroads and/or talking to some old fellers on railroading message boards–in that case, you will still be guilty of failing to use reason right off the bat, but at least you stand a chance of proving me wrong on some fact. That won’t make your original response a rational one, but it would ensure that nobody comes off with bragging rights, and a couple thread participants would jump in to make me (deservedly) eat crow.

Now I’ve given you some good advice, but I’ll try to stop now. After posting this, I predict I’ll see another post or two from you saying, in effect, “nanny nanny foo foo.” That would reinforce the point I’ve been making all along, but it would also be whipping a dead horse.

–Len.

75

OK, couldn’t resist. But I’ll REALLY try not to reply to you any more on this thread.

You’re mistaken: I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t give a damn about railroads, OR about whether Rand was right. If there are no errors in her novels, then she’s a deity not a human. I never cared about the railroading question, and said so. I only pursued the question to demonstrate that you were wrong–but more importantly, that you weren’t even approaching the question rationally. In fact it doesn’t even matter whether I have the facts right: it’s possible that my research was also faulty. But your no research at all is intrinsically anti-reason.

As for changing the subject, I repeat that my FIRST reply to you specifically cited you for describing Rand in terms befitting Holy writ. You could have proven me wrong by responding ratinoally, but instead you pursued an illogical course of assertions, non-research and finally shoddy research.

My hope is that you’ll renounce the fundamental error of Objectivism: the belief that sound reasoning infallibly leads to correct answers. The progress of science demonstrates the opposite: new data continually challenges the hypotheses of the past. Embrace fallibility. It’ll make you a better thinker, and a more pleasant person to be around besides.

–Len.

76

Rule 291 which is the rule I mentioned is explicitly a stop signal which means Stop, then proceed at restricted speed. It proves that there is a basis for Dagny’s decision. I never discussed rule 290 and it is irrelevant what the other rules are. My point was based on showing that there is a basis for Dagny’s decision. Don’t you get that?

As I said, you are wrong and so is your whole thesis about Rand and Objectivism.

77

Len,

Now I’ve given you some good advice, but I’ll try to stop now. After posting this, I predict I’ll see another post or two from you saying, in effect, “nanny nanny foo foo.” That would reinforce the point I’ve been making all along, but it would also be whipping a dead horse.

This is not a stalemate. I have won, you have lost. You have not proven that Dagny made the wrong decision which was your original point. Let me give you some advice so that you can extricate yourself from this position you’ve gotten yourself into: Just say it…“Len was wrong.” Come on. You’ll feel better. Just say it.

78

When I wrote: “No you are, no you are, no you are, no you are…Sounds like you’re getting a little VEHEMENT, Len.” I was recalling Peewee Herman’s movie. You seem to want to make everything a personal attack rather than deal with the issue which is Dagny’s decision. You are revealing your inability to prove your point so you attack everyong for not being reasonable…as if you are reasonable. The point is…it is reasonable that Dagny made the right decision. Pure and simple. Quit changing the subject.

79

Like I said, you’re misspeaking. It’s a “signal,” not a “stop signal.” Either you’re misusing “stop signal” as a generic term for “signal,” which is incorrect, or else you’re inventing the notion that “stop signal” describes any signal that relates to stopping, which is also incorrect. So as I said before, I’m sure you’re just misspeaking, but it demonstrates the shoddiness of your research.

Rule #292 is the only “stop signal” there is. Rule #291 is a “stop, then proceed” signal, NOT a “stop” signal. You think it’s plausible to contradict me on that because you know nothing whatsoever about railway signaling. If you refered to a rule 291 signal as a “stop signal” to any railroad man, he will promptly correct you. You’re misusing terminology that you don’t understand.

Is there some way I can help make this even clearer to you?

What makes me your well-wisher is that I regret what you’re doing to yourself. Because your knowledge of railroading falls below a critical threshold, you think you sound plausible when impartial bystanders can immediately recognize that you’re talking through your hat. Not only don’t you think people will realize it; you don’t even think you are talking through your hat. It’s a well-documented phenomenon. I point it out to help you, not to insult you: I’ve caught myself pretending to know things when I haven’t a clue, and been humiliated as a result–for example, making smalltalk about sports to contractors. I look like an idiot because I am an idiot, and I’ve learned not to pretend otherwise. “I don’t know anything about sports” are now magic words to me, having discovered the liberating power of admitting ignorance and fallibility.

–Len.

80

Len wrote:

“Rule #292 is the only “stop signal” there is. Rule #291 is a “stop, then proceed” signal, NOT a “stop” signal. You think it’s plausible to contradict me on that because you know nothing whatsoever about railway signaling. If you refered to a rule 291 signal as a “stop signal” to any railroad man, he will promptly correct you. You’re misusing terminology that you don’t understand.”

Stay on point. Dagny’s stop signal could not be interpreted because they knew that it was not working. It could not be interpreted as either a stop signal or a stop and then proceed signal. All they knew is that it was a non-working stop signal so it was impossible to determine which of the other similar signals might have actually been correct - but because it was a non-working stop signal, you can easily assume that it was NOT a stop signal. For that matter, depending on the type of signal used, it could have been a Stop and Proceed signal or even a Restricting signal. It could even have been a Medium Clear signal depending on the condition of the apparatus. There are subtle differences between them. But they could have figured out quite easily which of several options were possible by means of determining which lights were out and what it would mean if they were on. There are about 300 such possibilities, many of which could not have been possible…but we know one thing…it was NOT a stop signal; it was a non-working stop signal. These men were unwilling to make a decision on which was the correct procedure which is why they had been there for some time when Dagny approached them. You have to put yourself in the circumstance to see the whole 3-dimensional context that Rand is describing. My source says this about a Stop and Proceed signal:

"Stop and Proceed

Stop, then proceed at Restricted Speed until the entire train has:

  1. Passed a more favorable fixed signal,

    or

  2. Entered nonsignalled DCS territory,

    or

  3. Passed a location where a more favorable cab signal was received.

When a letter G (grade marker) or letter R (restricting marker) is displayed in addition to a number plate as part of these aspects, freight trains may observe the signal as though Restricting, Rule 290, were displayed."

Rule 290 is:

"Restricting

Proceed at Restricted Speed until the entire train has:

  1. Passed a more favorable fixed signal,

    or

  2. Entered nonsignalled DCS territory,

    or

  3. Passed a location where a more favorable cab signal was received."

Rand did not provide the full context for all of this because it was irrelevant to the point. Nor was it necessary for her to do so because what she was trying to point out is the utter inefficacy of some men who don’t think for themselves. She merely stated that it was a stop signal that was not working. Somehow they got off on the siding which was also considered by the conductor to be not correct. But he was afraid to make the right decision that Dagny made which was to proceed slowly. I merely pointed out rule 291 to show that there were circumstances where one could stop and proceed…which is, in fact, what Dagny did.

So you can’t say that Dagny made the wrong decision for the following reasons:

  • There are circumstances when the proper decision in this context (during the 50s) was what Dagny decided which was to proceed with caution

  • Ayn Rand indicated that it was the proper decision in order to make her point about inefficacious men. That is the author’s prerogative and proves nothing about her level of knowledge - only that she left the more specific issues such as which kind of signal was really there unstated but that Dagny’s decision corresponded with the facts. That is in the nature of fiction.

  • The signal and switch were broken so there is no way to make a judgment about Dagny’s decision since we don’t know what the correct signal was…but we do know that it was a broken stop signal which means it was not a stop signal.

So Dagny’s decision was the correct one. You should have just realized beforehand that this was not an incident about which to make a negative generalization about Ayn Rand or Objectivism. All you had to do was read the full context and if you are knowledgeable about railroads realize that Rand did not give you enough information in the first place. But of course, you didn’t.