Objectivist Bad Guys?

Posted by Zero 11 years, 4 months ago to Entertainment
42 comments | Share | Flag

I was kinda harsh on Hiraghm the other day with his THREE DAYS OF A CONDOR post, so figured I'd stick my neck out with one of my favorites.

Frank, the titular Thief, is just about as close to an Objectivist as I've found in movie bad guys.

(If only he stole from the state instead of the private sector. Of course Ragnar not only stole from the state but he gave the money back to those it was taken from. Big difference!)

Anyway, one cool thing about this show, it reminds you that the distance between Objectivism and the average man is less than you might think. Frank makes a plan for his life and pursues it with competence and integrity. That really resonates with the viewer.

If you haven't seen it, I'm pretty sure it's on Netflix.

So, does anyone remember this one? What did you think? Thumbs up? Down? Meh?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by LESTROY 11 years, 4 months ago
    I have been an Objectivist for 50 years and my experience has been that you need to be just as careful in any dealings with Os as with the general public; especially when it comes to money. Perhaps you need to be more careful because the movement is rife with rationalists who haven't done any "inner work" to understand what is driving them. Above all, don't rely on a supposed belief in the philosophy as a guarantee of integrity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Howard was always going to face the court of opinion, which includes the jades. You want to point out hierarchy of offense. You place a bully pulpit more evil than Force? that's an interesting discussion. Who causes more damage? a world class thief or a Paul Krugman? Intent is important here. Gail is a tough one. Was his an evil intent? Opinion is not slander. and Gail's obligation was to himself first and foremost-not Roark. You have a point on the close friendship. Journey still happens for Gail and the larger offense Gail does to himself. It's as evil to glorify someone who doesn't deserve it as it is to not celebrate those people who are great accomplishers and deserve praise.
    a little off topic, but, do you enjoy Tarrentino movies like Pulp Fiction?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're kidding, right?

    Leaving aside all the other victims of his unjust witch hunts perpetrated for profit and power, what of his damage to Roark's career? A lesser man would not have survived such a brutal attack.

    Yet Gayle was "close enough" that the perfect man could be friends with him - long before he ever repented his sins!
    .
    In comparison, your judgement of Frank seems particularly harsh.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wynand actively worked through public opinion. He did not use force. In most cases, he gave people a chance to prove they were hypocrites. Pandering is different from taking over the system such as Toohey lusted for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I chose Dahmer for shock value while granting your point. I claim nothing for him.

    But Wynand? Really? That monster ruthlessly destroyed peoples live without a second thought.
    That he eventually blew his brains out only shows the true depth of his sin.

    Frank did nothing anywhere near as evil. And he was an independent - never Mafioso.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    so close....see, I don't agree. as a matter of fact, the romanticism of a mafia honor or a Fagin or an Arafat holds no value for me. Wynand had a journey at least and when he faced what he had become ...well....
    that someone able to make all of these distinctions and miss the most obvious moral questions seems to me to be more immoral than the clueless moocher who was raised to eat out of another's hand
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes. but your Jeffrey Dahmer comparison out of all the comparisons you could possibly make? hmmm. name one Objectivist philosophical characteristic that monster had. Hint: predator is not one
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I hear what you're saying.
    I look for excellence not perfection. I notice when they come close and I'll give them a nod.

    But I hear you. Glossing over the thievery is like saying Jeffery Dahmer was "this close" to being an Objectivist except he ate the bodies of his murdered victims.
    (I'm not really saying that about Dahmer - I know nothing about him except I'm glad he's dead.)

    But Frank really wasn't that far away. He was non-violent until given cause. His back story showed a huge chunk of his life was taken from him unjustly. The high-end thievin' was just his way of catching up and taking back.

    Again, I'm not saying he got that right. I never called him an Objectivist. More of a kindred spirit. A Gayle Wynand. So close, but...
    (Make no mistake, Gayle was a "bad guy".)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "we" don't need to make a distinction, you need to crack the spine of one of Rand's non-fiction books. Capitalism the Unknown Ideal is a good place to start. As well, Atlas Society has podcasts of classes/series discussing the philosophy. Check your premises. rational self interest is not served by stealing which is a form of force.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why isn't he pursuing his rational self interest?

    Perhaps we need to make a distinction:

    "Objectivist" - one of the followers of Rand's "Objectivist" philosophy..

    and "objectivist"... someone who behaves in an objective manner.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    no-Objectivists do not steal from rightful property owners. Ragnar takes back property stolen from producers. Completely different. Robin Hood does the same. The contradiction in this thief's philosophy is so huge, I am amazed that people enjoy watching it. Ultimately he is not pursuing his rational self interest and so therefore is no hero.
    But I'll throw one out there for you-
    "Catch Me If You Can." This real life story depicted in a Hollywood movie has a somewhat desirable ending. The kid ends up using his superior skills morally. Now whether he actually understood the moral difference , we don't know-after all, he was tired of running and didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 4 months ago
    Oh, I agree, I think Caan's character in "Thief" was Objectivist.
    And I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo