Posted by
Catmman on Friday, May 22, 2009 10:15:53 AM
Summary: The following is from Hank Reardens anniversary party. Francisco d'Anconia has arrived at the party. He is being asked about his actions with a copper mine he had owned in Mexico. Francisco is a "covert agent" as it were. He plays the field and mingles with the collectivists out in the open, mocking them for their beliefs, but hiding his true intentions behind a "playboy" type irresponsibility. This makes him despised by both the collectivists as well as those who are still fighting for their companies in the face of increasing government intervention and outright nationalization.
The discussion this excerpt comes from is when Francisco is questioned about what happened in Mexico. Francisco had purchased a useless copper mine at great expense, staffed it and made it seem as if it were turning a profit, again at great personal expense to himself. The government of Mexico seized the property thinking they would be making a great profit from the mine, not knowing the mine was useless. Francisco had done what he did on purpose, knowing the mine was useless and did it to stick it to the Mexican government and make a greater, though initially subtle point about the seizure of private property, nationalization and to make a point about "the greater good." I'm going from memory on this, but I think I got the jist of it.
Francsico shook his head regretfully. "I don't know why you should call my behavior rotten. I thought you would recognize it as an honest effort to practice what the whole world is preaching. Doesn't everyone believe it is evil to be selfish? I was totally selfless in regard to the San Sebastian project. Isn't it evil to pursue a personal interest? I had no personal interest in it whatever. Isn't it evil to work for profit? I did not work for profit - I took a loss. Doesn't everyone agree that the purpose and justification of an industrial enterprise are not production, but the livelihood of the employees? The San Sebastian Mines were the most eminently successful venture in industrial history: They produced no copper, but they provided a livelihood for thousands of men who could not have achieved in a lifetime, the equivalent for what they got for one days work, which they could not do. Isn't it generally agreed that an owner is a parasite and an exploiter, that it is the employees who do all the work and make the product possible? I did not exploit anyone. I did not burden the San Sebastien Mines with my useless presence; I left them in the hands of the men who count. I did not pass judgement on the value of that property. I turned it over to a mining specialist. He was not a very good specialist, but he needed the job very badly. Isn't it generally conceeded that when you hire a man for a job, it is his need that counts, not his ability? Doesn't everyone believe that in order to get the goods, all you have to do is need them? I haven't carried out every moral precept of our age. I expected gratitude and a citation of honor. I do not understand why I am being damned."
I re-read this this morning in a book I'm reading, The Ayn Rand Reader. Thought this particular paragraph speaks well to the prevailing philosophy from Washington today, especially as it pertains to what seems to be turning into the outright nationalization of the American auto industry.
If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, you need to. Now.