May

15

Howard Roark Understands…

Filed Under Libertarian Philosophy 

Was thinking about this speech this morning.

Is life imitating art?

Howard Roark understands. Those who understand Roark should understand as well.

These are some of the excerpts that I think are both important, and timely.

Excerpts from Howard Roark’s Courtroom Speech
From _The Fountainhead_, by Ayn Rand

Read the whole speech:
http://www.nasonart.com/personal/lifelessons/fountainhead.html

“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.”

—–

“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.

“I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.

“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.

“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.

“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.

“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

…..

The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.

…..

“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.”

“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.

“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.

“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.

“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.

“My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”

Comments

6 Responses to “Howard Roark Understands…”

  1. jim kearney on May 15th, 2009 3:09 pm

    hmmmmm – interesting

    So if more then one person worked on it voluntarily with Roark, say only five percent of the time – does that give Roark the right to destroy that five percent?

    What if it was 10%, 15% or 50%? Where is the line drawn or is it even drawn?

    The destruction of property is tricky if there are multiple owners. While the goal of the destruction can be understandable, unless it is agreed upon by all parties of ownership, it probably should not be done.

    Note – I said ownership – should I let the crocodiles eat the dogs I own, should I protect that dog or should I just kill the dog myself? It all relies on my ownership of the dog. What if I did not own the whole dog but I only owned part of it? What if my kiss and I each paid 20 bucks to get the dog and ownership was split 5 ways? Who makes the decision then?

    If Roark was the sole owner of his building then yes, I think I can easily agree with the sentiment he presents and have no argument with the destruction of something he rightfully owns. That would be his choice, it is his sole property and no one has the right to force him to do anything with it that he doesn’t wish to do.

    If he is NOT the sole owner – I think there might be some grounds for a difference of opinion. If Roark was forcing his decision on others then he would likely be as wrong in doing so has they would be if they forced their decisions on him. It would have to be an agreed upon solution between all parties involved to make it a right and just solution would it not?

  2. seangalt on May 15th, 2009 6:42 pm

    An excellent comment, Jim.

    I don’t think the comment box is large enough for me to respond so I will turn my response into a post, over the weekend I hope.

    Look for it. :)

    As for Crocs, I am not in favor of them. But when it comes to Gators, especially Florida Gators, well, they get to eat whatever they want.

  3. American Citizen on May 15th, 2009 6:44 pm

    The redirect to this site is interesting as well.

    I saw the movie “Fountainhead” but never read the book. That was back in my Independent-with-strong-Democrat-leanings days. Even now, I have issues with the totality of architect Roark’s attitude. Generally speaking, architects don’t design buildings for their personal ownership. Their own house is different. The function of the building, by Mises van der Rohe’s maxim, must ever follow form. Function is determined by end users.

    It’s a conundrum. Architecture is a service business, and clients have to be satisfied with the service they receive. Enter economics and the principles of free market enterprise. Supply and demand. So who owns the building?

    As to foundation, I find the similarity to the US Constitution important. Tinkering with foundation is foolhardy. During the construction phase of a building or a nation, the architects are in charge. Mostly. Are they building a prison or a free society? What to do when second-handers tinker with the furniture arrangements? What if they take it upon themselves to tinker with the foundations?

    This is fun, Sean.

  4. jim kearney on May 16th, 2009 3:51 am

    It all comes down to ownership.

    If you were the architect that I hired do build something for me one would think it would be mine. However, that is not necessarily the case. Let’s say I hired you to design and build a building for me, but didn’t give you any money yet. We went through the motions and drew out the designs, where it was going be located etc.

    You started by purchasing the property I wanted and started to build the building according to the design. In six months it was completed. It was a fantastic structure, a marvel in its own right. On the seventh month I come along decide to make a slew of changes on that building. Basically, the changes would restructure the entire face of the building into something totally different then what currently exists now. As the architect you decide to destroy the building instead.

    Question – do you have the right to destroy the building?
    Answer – YES

    Why you ask, because you own the building. You paid for the property, materials, you put in the effort etc. to make it all happen. It doesn’t matter that I asked for the building to be built. I never took ownership of the building by giving you any compensation for any of your work. You did not donate the building to me in way shape or form. From a libertarian perspective, as the owner, you have the right to do with it as you will.

    If all it took was a vote to gain ownership, try telling your mortgage company you voted to own your house without paying the mortgage. See how long that flies.

  5. seangalt on May 16th, 2009 1:21 pm

    I know I promised a longer story in one of these threads. It might not happen this weekend as I am growing tired of all this and I have a lot of internet marketing videos to watch. We’ll see.

    How about a really short story – a guy builds a house. He allows someone to paint a mural on it. Does that make the painter part-owner?

    In most of these hypothetical cases there is an assumption that person B _asked_ person A to build a house.

    However, what we are talking about is something entirely different – Person A did it on his own. With no help for many, many years. He built many roads to the house, so friends could find it, all on his own.

    And person A let all those who wanted to use his house to have a party and say what they wanted to…

    Then person B attacks person A – in his very own house!

    Then person B thinks because he and some of his friends can raise their hands and “vote”in a really bad restaurant that they can take over person A’s house?

    And Person A can see what is happening – that person B is a psycho-control freak that doesn’t really care what happens to the house?

    While person A does really care – he worked hard to build the house – he worked hard to build the roads – he worked hard to come up with ideas to get more people to the house – he thought the house had a really great future and could turn into a major apartment building one day…

    And that person B had done none of these things. In fact, he wanted control over every room of the house and threatened those who disagreed with him.

    With him around, fewer and fewer came to the house, and of those who did come many didn’t want to stay.

    What should person A do? Fight? Shrug? Something else? What will person A do?

    Well, it’s longer than I thought it would be and the ending hasn’t been written…guess we’ll just have to wait to find out!

  6. jim kearney on May 16th, 2009 11:21 pm

    OK – lets play a little devil’s advocate here and see what happens.

    In the house that Galt built, what was his goal? His original intention?

    Was his goal to keep the house to himself in the end or was it to donate the house to someone?

    Whatever Galt’s reason, he should follow through on it. Why, because that was his intention from the very beginning.

    Just because person _B_ is not worthy of Galt’s house does not change the facts behind why Galt built the house in the first place.

    You see, it is not person _B_ that is the issue in the story described. It is the onslaught and afrontry that person _B_ displays which changes Galt’s intention.

    What if Galt donated the house years ago – then person _B_ just came along afterwards – would Galt go back and claim it’s still his house?

    Is Galt’s new intention really to protect his house or is it to simply keep person _B_ out of the house with the UNINTENDED consequence of keeping everyone else out at the same time?

Leave a Reply