Traditionally, this week has been a hair on fire proposition. My wife and son’s birthday have passed but I am still on the hook for babysitting over the weekend so my wife can celebrate with friends in an adult oriented atmosphere. Fortunately, I got ahead on my reading so I have been able to keep my routine here.

There are a couple of anecdotal things that occur in this chapter:

  • First chapter that doesn’t use the phrase “Who is John Galt?”
  • Mexico nationalized San Sebastian Line
  • Dagny negotiates a deal with Reardon Metal
  • The National Alliance of Railroads meet and establish Anti-Dog Eat Dog Rule

It is the last point that I am going to settle on today. If you recall last week, I wrote about how a group of industrialists were meeting to talk about the idea of forming a trade group. The language that they were using was to prevent monopolies. In this chapter, that trade group was formed and called The National Alliance of Railroads.

The group selected a leader, and they passed their first resolution called the Anti-Dog Eat Dog rule. Also, if you recall the Alliance was also going to divide up the country into territories. With that, competition would be eliminated. Essentially, if a railroad operated in a particular regions, the others would not pursue any business. More on that later.

The National Alliance of Railroads elect an individual named Don Conway. He happens to be a newcomer to the industry and runs a particular area called the Rio Norte line. Unfortunately for him, that area had trains from Taggart Transcontinental first. It was majority decided that violated the Anti-dog Eat Dog rule. He was so successful, that he had virtually drove Taggart out of the market. Now he has to close down and re-vision his company.

Don seems to be a very competent business man otherwise he would not be able to dominate Taggert. However, he seems to be a very poor politician. My take on the interaction was the others used properties like honesty and transparency to paint Don into a corner and not be able to fight back. To that end, the skills and proficiencies that a person has in one endeavor does not necessarily translate to success in another setting.

I think the bigger, less obvious theme here is be mindful of groups being altruistic. I am not saying to be suspicious of everybody. But, a good first start is when someone is telling you what is better you. What I really hear is we don’t want people to infringe on our territory, we are going to protect it. In addition, we are going to package our idea in an emotional appeal that sounds like it is benevolent.

Think like the left/right dichotomy and pick your issue. Let’s say vouchers for school. Now, one party is thinking money will be drained from the established system and leave only the poor and by proxy decline in the system. The other side wants to use vouchers to send children to an institution that essentially uses the same methodology only slightly different than already exists. On one hand, I think having say and control with your money and children’s education is the better choice, but let’s look deeper.

What is the real issue? In my mind, it is failing of the educational system in real time. Some people are more switched on to it actually happening (the voucher people). But, each side is packaging their argument with emotional appeal for their own reasons like satisfying their power base. However, what is missing? It is the illusion of true choice. Not only is the current school system in failure, the established methods are really just treading the waters of time after the basic fundamentals are completed like reading and math.

I am not saying that everyone can be a true genius. But to punctuate this Mozart started writing music at five and Bobby Fischer was a chess grand champion at fourteen, Gregory R Smith was a Nobel Peace Prize winner at 12. I guarantee that none of these people were following the K-12 program. Not to say that there are not those that succeed despite the normal path. It’s just to say that there are likely more than two options.

End Your Programming Routine: So, Atlas Shrugged is shaping up to good potential. I think the thing about Ayn Rand thinking through things and writing about them is showing that the messages can be potent and entertaining at the same time. I am also getting intrigued about the character Dagny Taggert. For the rest of the message I think I was pretty clear, but consider the motive for the message.