Paul Larkin, continued. “He had clung to Rearden for years, in awed admiration. He came for advice, he asked for loans at times, but not often; the loans were modest and were always repaid, though not always on time. His motive in the relationship seemed to resemble the need of an anemic person who receives a kind of living transfusion from the mere sight of a savagely overabundant vitality.” Just in case the vampire angle had escaped anyone, although clearly he is not of the same category as Hank’s family.
Paul dwells more on public opinion, and also asking about Hank’s “man in Washington”, stressing how important they are, and that Hank isn’t taking things seriously enough.
This is another very important point that I haven’t discussed much yet — how much “should” people care what other people think, or businesses “care” about their reputation for accomplishing public good? It ties in with influence in government, because of course the government can make laws that restrict the activities of people or businesses — but this is broadly the equivalent of people doing so.
One thing is certain: good (e.g., having food available to buy) can be accomplished without the need for good intentions towards anyone (and, of course, evil is often wrought in spite of them). So I think it’s fair to say that caring about other people should not be “required”, as if such feelings can be enforced.
I find my brain and gut going around in circles on this. There is no question that people who are angry enough can rise up and destroy the person or business they are angry with, resorting to violence either directly or indirectly, via legislation (it amounts to the same thing); but to say that people or businesses who are not hurting others should have to worry about this, and should thus do what it takes to avoid this fate, seems grotesque, arbitrary, and unfair. The key, I think, is in the phrase “not hurting others”, and there can be a world of different models across the political spectrum buried in there.
I think this is connected to something I’ve read about recently, that people have two separate, parallel ways of evaluating events and making decisions: “economic man” and “moralistic man”. Economic man makes relative choices; he weighs the expected cost of actions with the expected benefit, and goes with whatever nets the most. Economic man is fundamentally rational. “Moralistic man” thinks in terms of absolutes, black and white, not counting the cost; his dilemmas are existential ones (if I’m thinking about this correctly). It is moralistic man who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies, when he could have ducked behind cover instead, because that’s who he is; equally, it is moralistic man who kills people in service to radical ideals.
I’m not going to be able to grapple with this properly right now, but never fear, Atlas Shrugged will give plenty more opportunities to do so later.