Perspective

While I’m reading this story I am trying to use some cultural relativism. In our culture many would see an obvious bad and an obvious good side to this story. Those who are in favor of the free-market economy and against the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog rule in the story, will predominantly (in our culture) be considered those most logical and fair. But I try not to forget that fair in the other sense could be that the Nation Alliance of Railroads is trying to create equal opportunities for all. Personally, I agree with what Dagny stands for and her way I thinking. I think Jim and his companions are corrupt and they use the idea of social welfare as justification for their unjust actions to easily diminish new competition. However, I still believe that’s not the only way to look at it. One could argue that by not having to worry about competition from other railroads, a company could focus on making their own railroads the best for the public. They can view Dagny, Don Conway, Ellis Wyatt, Hank Rearden as cold, heatless business people who purely let money drive their decisions, and now the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog rule is forcing them to think about the welfare of others. When my mom saw me reading this book she said that Ayn Rand was a big part of the libertarian movement, which is no surprise to why readers may favor a certain side. But after anthropology class this week I decided to recognize different perspectives and think that if I lived in a different culture (maybe one using a command economy) I would have a different outlook on this book, or feel reliability from different characters.