The Troubled Economics of Ayn Rand

Economics Economics Questions
81

Please reread the novel. They did not know it wasn’t working. The conductor told Ms. Taggart, “I don’t think the signal’s going to change. I think it’s busted.” Taggart’s instructions were intended to TEST the HYPOTHESIS that the signal was broken. That’s why she said, “Proceed with caution to the next signal. IF it’s in order, proceed to the main track.”

But it’s impossible for Rand’s depiction to be accurate. She said, “Proceed with caution to the next signal. IF it’s in order, proceed to the main track.” This returns us to my original point that there is no next signal. Folllow closely now. One signal directed the train onto the siding. There may or may not have been earlier signals indicating caution, but they don’t matter. The train entered the siding and stopped for a signal. If you’re wondering how a siding is laid out, I’ll tell you: the stop signal is at the end of the siding, before the switch. It may be preceded by signals indicating caution, but they also don’t matter. If they proceed past the stop signal, they ARE entering the main track, because the next signal is on the main track.

You’re dragging this out painfully. Admit your ignorance of the subject, whether or not you admit Rand’s, and end this painful charade. I can’t bear to see you beating yourself silly in this way.

Also note, while you’re rereading your novel, that Rand keeps referring to a “red light,” and inserts dialogue like, “red means danger, lady.” This tells us that the signal in question used lights rather than, e.g., semaphores. But when you read the Wikipedia article on North American railroad signals, you (hopefully) noticed something: unlike traffic lights, railroad signals are much more complicated, involving multiple lights that may be on, of or blinking. Specifically, signal #290, “stop and then proceed,” is made of multiple lights, as is signal #291, “stop.” Neither can reasonably be described as a “red light,” nor would railroaders do so.

Which leaves exactly two options. Either Rand was visualizing a automobile traffic signal, and thus made the “red light” blooper, or else she really was describing a signal with only one red bulb. There is such a thing: namely, a two-aspect or three-aspect signal. Either has a single red light (though a two-aspect signal might have only a yellow and green light). If Rand wasn’t simply mistaken, and was intentionally referring to a two- or three-aspect signal, then that destroys your theory about rule #290: neither signal can give the indication “stop, then proceed.” That disposes of most of your post, where you persist in your mistaken clinging to rule 290. There is no way that can be the signal referred to by Rand.

–Len.

82

Actually, you didn’t include the full quote which is this: "The conductor spoke up. “I don’t think we had any business being sent off on a siding, that switch wasn’t working right, and this thing’s not working at all.” He jerked his head up at the red light. “I don’t think the signal’s going to change. I think it’s busted.”

The conductor explicitly asserted that the switch wasn’t working right and that the red light was not working at all. These are affirmations. My post still stands.

Another part of this section of the novel reads: "In her pause of startled anger, the fireman chuckled. “Last week, the crack special of the Southern got left on a siding for two hours—just somebody’s mistake.”

Dagny did not assert that the next signal was part of this same block. She was saying to proceed to the next signal…that doesn’t mean she meant the next signal in the block in which they were traveling. It may have meant that they should proceed to the signal in the next block. As you know, a block is a closed circuit that is completed by the train that sets signals in both directions. If the next signal was correct, it was part of a different block with a different circuit set by the train or by an oncoming train.

Once again, because of that and other reasons I mentioned, your thesis is proven wrong.

Regarding your red light statement that red light does not refer to railroad signals; from Wikipedia:

“A signal is a mechanical or electrical device erected beside a railway line to pass information relating to the state of the line ahead to train drivers/engineers. The driver interprets the signal’s indication and acts accordingly. Typically, a signal might inform the driver of the speed at which the train may safely proceed, or it may instruct the driver to stop.” and “It is important to understand that for signals that use colored aspects, the color of each individual light is subsumed in the overall pattern. In the United States, for example, it is common to see a “Clear” aspect consisting of a green light above a red light. The red light in this instance does not indicate “Stop”; it is simply a component of a larger aspect.”

The “Red means danger lady” comment was a result of Rand’s putting in the mouth of the worker something that he expected a lady not to know since at that time they did not know who she was and were later surprized that she was the person who ran the railroad and was giving instructions consistent with the facts.

83

Dude. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Continuing to talk can only convince the world you’re an idiot. Taggart instructs them to rejoin the main line if the next signal is clear. If the next signal weren’t in the same block, then by the time they reached it they would already have rejoined the main line.

Meanwhile, a two- or three-aspect signal displaying red means… wait for it… that there’s a train in the next block. By the time they reached your hypothetical signal, they would already be sharing a block with another train, unless the signal luckily was incorrect. Which boils down to proceeding, and seeing if they hit a train. If they do, the signal wasn’t busted.

Rand’s suggestion (via Taggart) was foolhardy in the extreme, and betrayed ignorance of railroading. That you can’t get your head around it makes you irrational, and that you are so upset about it makes you a religious fanatic.

–Len.

84

Len writes:

“Rand’s suggestion (via Taggart) was foolhardy in the extreme, and betrayed ignorance of railroading. That you can’t get your head around it makes you irrational, and that you are so upset about it makes you a religious fanatic.”

You haven’t proven that and I have given several reasons why and how Rand’s writing was correct. Many of my points you just ignored for the sake of not having to deal with them. You are irrational for holding a position that you cannot support. I have supported all of my statements and have refuted your statements several times. All you have to do is read the posts and you can see that whenever you are bested you revert to ad hominem attacks on me personally. You persist in changing the subject by attempting to make the discussion about me rather than about the point that you originally made that I amply refuted several times. Whenever I show that your interpretation of Dagny’s knowledge has another explanation, you attack me personally. I have had to keep you on track several times when you attempted to change the thesis away from your original post about Dagny and Rand and tried to change the subject to something about Objectivists that you can’t even support. In fact, because you can’t support your own original statements invalidates all other conclusions you have made about me and Objectivism. In fact, you have revealed a serious philosophical flaw in your rationalistic interpretation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Rationalism is not what Rand’s philosophy is about. In fact, rationalism and skepticism are the two basic philosophical points that she argues against and refutes in her philosophy. You have revealed your rationalism by insisting that your original point must be supported at all costs even when you are shown to be wrong or when there is another reasonable and believable explanation. That is exactly what a rationalist would do. Don’t bother a rationalist with facts. He is right no matter what. That is similar to religious rationalists who stick with a belief in god when there is no evidence for the existence of god. The religious fanatic is you because you fail to deal with arguments that refute your position. This conversation is over because you are too stubborn to admit when you have been bested by the facts. You should really work on that.

85

There is actually a heated debate going on which is based on Ayn Rand’s knowledge of railroad signals, in a thread which started as a discussion of Rand’s support of capitalism. May this moment go down in history as the most impressive tangent ever.

86

The original question wasn’t very meaty. Rand unequivocally stated her support of laissez-faire economics. Arrogant architects are no less “laissez-faire” than anything else one might choose voluntarily to be. Which leaves little of interest, except to watch a religious nut undergo meltdown.

–Len.

87

Hmm…how about…uh…

Ayn Rand’s haircut made her look exactly as hostile as she apparently was. Discuss.

88

If there’s nothing left to discuss, I’m locking this thread…

89

Boooring!

On a more serious note, the claim that there’s nothing left to discuss was made by the side of the argument that just declared victory. It might not be fair to lock the thread before the opponent concedes.

90

Actually you ruined it, Danny. I gave Rob the last word, and you had to stir the pot.

And as for “declaring victory,” why the spurious impartiality? His religious zeal, lack of research and nonexistent logic speak for themselves. The tangent was done more than a page ago, and has only gotten increasingly pathetic since.

–Len.

91

No impartiality. I didn’t bother reading the conversation, and it looked like there was something being disagreed upon. I just wanted to poke fun at whoever was responsible for there ever being a train signal debate on this site.

92

The concept of art is mostly subjective. Does anyone else here wonder how much great art has been lost to time due to collectivist thought? You have to think that countless numbers of great novels, inventions, and other pieces or art have been over looked or not even submitted because of this.

93

Well yea, okay, but there’s also the Pyramids, Stonehenge, the Colosseum, the Forbidden City, the Vatican, and the Great Wall of China. Not to mention all the castles.