The Money Mustache Community
Mustachian Community => Mustachian Book Club => Topic started by: meadpointofview on June 07, 2013, 03:01:18 PM
-
This is a totally amazing book and I recommend it. It opened my eyes to the moochers and looters. I will now be moving on to other Austrian Economics books like:
- The Road to Serfdom - FA Hayek
- For A New Liberty - Murray Rothbard
-
I'm just gonna leave this here (http://www.equip.org/articles/was-ayn-rand-right/).
Religion or no, it's a well thought out skewering of Objectivism and Rand's concept of "capitalism" with subtle points that are usually wasted with Randian "philosophy".
Also, by Rand's logic, any and all advice and assistance that you've received in these forums to improve your life and save money? Yeah, we're the socialist scum she railed against. I don't know about you, but I think a few people here would be offended to be slapped down and insulted for acts of kindness and altruism towards yourself. Me? I'll take it as a compliment.
-
Maybe I completely missed the part in the book that pointed out kindness and voluntarily assisting someone as being maligned but moreso those acts that are mandated at the point of a gun or via that threat of jail and IP confiscation.
-
Also, by Rand's logic, any and all advice and assistance that you've received in these forums to improve your life and save money? Yeah, we're the socialist scum she railed against. I don't know about you, but I think a few people here would be offended to be slapped down and insulted for acts of kindness and altruism towards yourself. Me? I'll take it as a compliment.
Not necessarily.
I don't want to get into a religious war over it... but that's really not exactly what she said. [According to her] If you're helping here because you like to that's a darned selfish act. She defines altruism as doing it as a duty or from tradition.
I've considered myself objectivist for probably about 30 years. Note the little o. Maybe I'm being petty -- but I've had my own issues with Big O Objectivism myself. Much like some organized religion, sometimes the most offensive part of an idea isn't always the idea, but the followers of the idea.
-
Maybe I completely missed the part in the book that pointed out kindness and voluntarily assisting someone as being maligned but moreso those acts that are mandated at the point of a gun or via that threat of jail and IP confiscation.
I believe he was referring to the philosophy required to live in Galt's Gulch. Namely, that you have to pay for everything, doing things just to do someone a favor was not allowed.
-
Maybe I completely missed the part in the book that pointed out kindness and voluntarily assisting someone as being maligned but moreso those acts that are mandated at the point of a gun or via that threat of jail and IP confiscation.
If that happened, he'd just be Daley.
-
Complete garbage.
I do however, like the part where the raging "objectivist" idealogue raves about using the tools of the state that she abhors so much. Oh wait, that was Rand in real life, using medicare in her old age.
Ok ok, how about the part where the same character writes lovey letters to a mass murderer in prison, calling him the "ideal man". Hmm, not in the book either, that was Rand too.
Well, ok, Austrian economics. Here's a good one, the higher the debt to GDP ratio the lower the growth...a paper PROVED it. Well, except that there were mistakes considered so elementary that they were either the product of idiots (Harvard economists...they aren't supposed to be), or they were planted as proof for an ideology that is both morally bankrupt and useless at creating growth.
The period of highest growth in NA was also the period with the highest taxation on the rich. Rand hated this because she was a sycophant of the rich. She was a moocher, no doubt about it, they just don't look like the picture Rand tries to paint.
-
I've considered myself objectivist for probably about 30 years. Note the little o. Maybe I'm being petty -- but I've had my own issues with Big O Objectivism myself. Much like some organized religion, sometimes the most offensive part of an idea isn't always the idea, but the followers of the idea.
Same here. Her books exposed me to some concepts that would have taken me years to find through academia, and I'm grateful for that. But she is so divisive that just mentioning her name seems to bring out the worst in people of both ends of the spectrum.
@Deano-I'm no economist, but am fairly sure that Austrian economics has more to offer than a single paper, on a single concept (GDP vs. deb ratio). Probably important to consider the context that Hayek was writing in as well.
If that happened, he'd just be Daley.
I Lol'd...
Best,
Mr. PoP
-
Oh boy, this will open a can of worms.
I enjoyed the book when I was younger. I think Ayn gets bashed on too hard for both her philosophy and her writing. I don't think she's too bad at either.
She is very good at presenting ideas so that you agree with them, and while I, as a libertarian, think many of her capitalism ideas are true, think many of her objectivist ones are overly simplified in a complex world.
As with anything, examine with a critical eye, and throw out the bad, keep the good.
-
Oh boy, this will open a can of worms.
I enjoyed the book when I was younger. I think Ayn gets bashed on too hard for both her philosophy and her writing. I don't think she's too bad at either.
She is very good at presenting ideas so that you agree with them, and while I, as a libertarian, think many of her capitalism ideas are true, think many of her objectivist ones are overly simplified in a complex world.
As with anything, examine with a critical eye, and throw out the bad, keep the good.
Yea.
-
Not necessarily.
I don't want to get into a religious war over it... but that's really not exactly what she said. [According to her] If you're helping here because you like to that's a darned selfish act. She defines altruism as doing it as a duty or from tradition.
I've considered myself objectivist for probably about 30 years. Note the little o. Maybe I'm being petty -- but I've had my own issues with Big O Objectivism myself. Much like some organized religion, sometimes the most offensive part of an idea isn't always the idea, but the followers of the idea.
Which is why I respect you, Spork... but I do think you might be reading too deep into her writing for things that aren't there that you know logically need to be, which is why you're a lower case objectivist. Personally, I may not know you well, but you don't strike me as an objectivist... a realist and a rational man, but not an objectivist. I think as time marches on people try to romanticize Rand and her philosophy, which is why it's been adopted by modern "tea party" and "libertarian" types, despite the fact that their lot were despised by Rand the woman as well. "She loves capitalism! Entrepreneurs are heroes!" People forget history and detach the writings from the woman. A woman who was more bat-guano than a love child between Ron Paul and Donald Trump.
I believe he was referring to the philosophy required to live in Galt's Gulch. Namely, that you have to pay for everything, doing things just to do someone a favor was not allowed.
Bingo. The Gulch is an embodiment of Rand's "perfect society". Read all you want into the rest of her philosophy, but that's ultimately what she's driving at. It's her utopian ideal.
At its core, Objectivism has the same fundamental flaw as Marx's Socialism in why it doesn't work. Human nature and sin. It's why Rand's own protagonists are hypocritical to her own ideals. They can't even function rationally otherwise, even in fiction.
Oh boy, this will open a can of worms.
I enjoyed the book when I was younger. I think Ayn gets bashed on too hard for both her philosophy and her writing. I don't think she's too bad at either.
She is very good at presenting ideas so that you agree with them, and while I, as a libertarian, think many of her capitalism ideas are true, think many of her objectivist ones are overly simplified in a complex world.
As with anything, examine with a critical eye, and throw out the bad, keep the good.
I can agree to an extent... but there's so much rubbish and personal hatred wrapped up in her philosophies (which is why she's so polarizing - hatred begets hatred), that it's not worth even bothering when you can skip straight to the source material for a far finer dissertation on responsible capitalism and not bother with the grossly negligent misunderstandings and simplistic adaptation of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
Maybe I completely missed the part in the book that pointed out kindness and voluntarily assisting someone as being maligned but moreso those acts that are mandated at the point of a gun or via that threat of jail and IP confiscation.
If that happened, he'd just be Daley.
So that's what happened! I had no idea. *scowls* Dirty commies!
-
Which is why I respect you, Spork... but I do think you might be reading too deep into her writing for things that aren't there that you know logically need to be, which is why you're a lower case objectivist.
I actually remember her specifically writing about this (and I'm too lazy and not argumentative enough to go find it.) The whole point was "trading a value for a value" -- not "never do anything nice." (I probably have read everything she's written, though maybe not the stuff they've dug from her journals and released in the last 10 years or so). For ages I subscribed to the various mags (The Objectivist Forum, The Objectivist, The Intellectual Activist) and many years ago I actually met/had drinks with a few of "the elite".
She is a lightning rod. I know that.
Personally, I may not know you well, but you don't strike me as an objectivist... a realist and a rational man, but not an objectivist. I think as time marches on people try to romanticize Rand and her philosophy, which is why it's been adopted by modern "tea party" and "libertarian" types, despite the fact that their lot were despised by Rand the woman as well. "She loves capitalism! Entrepreneurs are heroes!" People forget history and detach the writings from the woman. A woman who was more bat-guano than a love child between Ron Paul and Donald Trump.
Yes, she spins one revolution in her grave every time I cast a libertarian ballot. (And I'd say I'm lowercase libertarian, too.) This was actually part of a bit of a sticking point where I "lowercased" myself.
I'm all for individualism. But there is something in the BigO camp where they want to be so individual as to -- well, just not get along with anyone.
If you think about it, the objectivist/libertarian camps should be the perfect ally for everyone*. There are extreme left issues where they agree. There are extreme right issues where they agree. I can't for the life of me understand** why folks can't work together on a single thread they have in common even when they don't come to the same conclusion using the same premise. I can't understand why they cannot be a middle ground voice of reason that would say (for example): "Dear Left: yes, this is an important issue that we need to protect. And dear Right: you have a valid point that if this is allowed, you shouldn't have to pay for it."
--
*Probably this just isn't practical as the numbers are pretty low even for Libertarians. But I can't tell you how many people I've met that say "I'd vote Libertarian if I thought they'd win." Don't be stupid: They can't win until people vote for them.
**And yes, I've heard the Objectivist argument on this. I "understand" it. I am unconvinced.
-
This book was a big eye opener for me. I studied history at UCLA and basically graduated a Marxist. I read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead in the sauna in 2008, and I sweated out all the bullshit my commie profs fed me. Can't tell you how grateful I am today.
-
This book was a big eye opener for me. I studied history at UCLA and basically graduated a Marxist. I read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead in the sauna in 2008, and I sweated out all the bullshit my commie profs fed me. Can't tell you how grateful I am today.
Har!
-
This is a totally amazing book and I recommend it. It opened my eyes to the moochers and looters. I will now be moving on to other Austrian Economics books like:- The Road to Serfdom - FA Hayek
- For A New Liberty - Murray Rothbard
For an alternative view from a similar time, I'd recommend "For us, the living" by Robert Heinlein
It's a great description of the social credit theory of economics.
-
This is a totally amazing book and I recommend it. It opened my eyes to the moochers and looters. I will now be moving on to other Austrian Economics books like:- The Road to Serfdom - FA Hayek
- For A New Liberty - Murray Rothbard
I HATED Atlas Shrugged (and Fountainhead). Not that I disagreed with the ideas (though I think Rand is a bit of an extremist), but the writing was just awful.
I know, I know, as a libertarian, I'm supposed to love Ayn Rant, but I don't. I find her writing style stilted and her characters ridiculously one-dimensional and unrealistic.
I waded through both books (not an easy task with "Atlas Shrugged" which goes on and on and on and on) just because I had plunked down the money at Barnes and Noble (I know, I should have gone to the library), but it was a chore.
Though I agree on the Hayek. Also "Liberalism" by Ludwig von Mises (it discusses classical liberalism- the stuff America was founded on, not the big government, police state, politically correct modern "liberalism").
-
It's very popular to hate on her writing, but I actually enjoy her stories, long monologues where she sits you down and hits you over the head with her philosophies aside. So those of you dissuaded from reading it from hearing that over and over, still consider giving it a shot. I think it's worth reading once (and then reading the criticisms of it afterward, and thinking critically about both).
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20140409.png)
-
I really liked Atlas Shrugged the first time I read it. i tried to read The Fountainhead when I was in sixth grade (the smartest kid in our class had read it), and I got extremely bored in the first chapter. I let it go then.
I picked up Ayn Rand again when I was in college, accidentally running a libertarian/conservative newspaper. Reading both books turned me into a small l libertarian for almost two years.
One of my HUGELY Democrat (fairly prominent and influential Hoosier Democrat) professors talked to me about it when I came to office hours to ask him what his views were. He was always cutting himself off in class, because he knew that being a professor isn't automatically a political soapbox (unlike UCLA history professors, I guess). That day, I went back to being a centrist, which is where I started anyway. My political beliefs are a hodgepodge of the extremes of both sides of the spectrum. :)
-
For a (hopefully) different viewpoint:
I happened to read this book at a point in my life where one of the ideas struck me very forcefully. Namely, the situation with Hank Reardon and his family, where he felt tied to them due to their weakness. The concept that the weakness of another person does not give them the right to DEMAND help and assistance continually, while providing nothing in return, hit home with where I was in my life, and ultimately helped me make some tough decisions that I needed to make to get my life heading in a better direction.
So, I have some gratitude to Ms. Rand for giving me the kick in the pants I needed at that point. I did also enjoy the book, although the diatribes could get a little tiresome.
-
I liked Atlas Shrugged. While there's a lot to dislike about her philosophy it was at least an interesting viewpoint I hadn't been exposed to before. Rand's writing was alright for the most part (Full Disclosure . . . there was a multi-page monologue in the middle somewhere where I skipped a few pages ahead around the third or fourth time that the same point was repeated).
-
there was a multi-page monologue in the middle somewhere
Multi-page?!? It was a novella monologue. In the real world, the mic would've been cut off by the third time he referred to himself in third-person.
-
Yeah, I remember it being particularly hard to read. The rest of the book wasn't bad though.
-
Um... You Libertarians do realize that Ayn Rand's philosophy evolved into Satanism as practiced by Anton LeVey's cult, right? I am not exaggerating here.
-
Um... You Libertarians do realize that Ayn Rand's philosophy evolved into Satanism as practiced by Anton LeVey's cult, right? I am not exaggerating here.
I don't see how that matters one whit. Plenty of people stretch things, misuse them, etc.
Do you blame Moses for the Westboro Baptist Church?
(Not saying either Ayn or Moses was right, but pointing out crazy zealots that take something and warp it doesn't make the original thing valid or not.)
Also, what's your problem with Satanists?
Overall, I don't see what your post has to do with anything.
-
Um... You Libertarians do realize that Ayn Rand's philosophy evolved into Satanism as practiced by Anton LeVey's cult, right? I am not exaggerating here.
Also, what's your problem with Satanists?
Overall, I don't see what your post has to do with anything.
Because Satanists are evil, just like Objectivists (which are the same thing as Satanists).
-
Um... You Libertarians do realize that Ayn Rand's philosophy evolved into Satanism as practiced by Anton LeVey's cult, right? I am not exaggerating here.
Also, what's your problem with Satanists?
Overall, I don't see what your post has to do with anything.
Because Satanists are evil, just like Objectivists (which are the same thing as Satanists).
(http://www.untuckedshirts.com/b3s/funny/speechless.gif)
-
For a (hopefully) different viewpoint:
I happened to read this book at a point in my life where one of the ideas struck me very forcefully. Namely, the situation with Hank Reardon and his family, where he felt tied to them due to their weakness. The concept that the weakness of another person does not give them the right to DEMAND help and assistance continually, while providing nothing in return, hit home with where I was in my life, and ultimately helped me make some tough decisions that I needed to make to get my life heading in a better direction.
So, I have some gratitude to Ms. Rand for giving me the kick in the pants I needed at that point. I did also enjoy the book, although the diatribes could get a little tiresome.
+1 The same exact thing happened to me when I read it, and really resonated for me.
-
I don't like the parallels of all the pointless government bullshit which happens, that's for sure.
Or maybe that's the libertarian in me speaking up ;)
-
Rand was ~90-95% right most of the time... but that last ~5-10% was seriously problematic, and it took gross distortions of reality to make her logic consistent for herself. It takes a massive denial of what society is, what it has done for everyone, and what we should do within it to be a moral part of it to blindly follow Rand.
She was guided heavily by Aristotle (re-branding much of his concepts as if they were her own -itself a corruption of her own 'self-made' delusion), then warped it all in her (otherwise justified) hatred of Russian Communism into thinking ruthless Capitalism was perfect. It's an endorsement of Social Darwinism -which is highly immoral.
She had a totally distorted view of what it means to say "I earned that".
Society goes too far in demonizing selfishness -a word that just means 'for yourself' and is morally neutral, but she went too far and rode an overly-selfish worldview right into the ground.
To make Atlas Shrugged work, she had to make two sides into ridiculous caricatures where one side has hero CEOs/master planners/inventors run companies, doing every single important thing on their own. On the other side, generic/nameless companies run by packs of complete worthless idiots who can only get ahead by cheating and stealing from the heroes and tricking government into making it all happen.
It's easy to see who's right in this impossible reality. But she taught her philosophy as if this WAS reality. That was pure blindness. It was just fear that Communism would take over America.
She rightfully took religion like we should any other claim -'show me the evidence. oh, you don't have any? ok. disbelief remains the default, and only logical, position.' A delusion I'm glad she railed against -and sad that modern psychology still gives a pass for no reason what-so-ever.
As for the book, it would be a pretty interesting dystopian classic (alongside -1984, Brave New World) IF it were ~300 pages. But it's a BILLION pages. This right there shows that she was somewhat insane and not objective. She would just claim she was not willing to lower herself or compromise -which was a cheap excuse to think she needed no editor and she was flawless.
As others have mentioned Galt's radio speech at the end is CRAZY long. If in any way realistic, no one would have been listening to it as it went on for hours. It didn't need to be so long to make her point, so that's a farce.
From what I remember, too... in The Fountainhead, the 'hero' architect blows up the building he designed because the people who paid him to build it, changed it. It was no longer the vision he created. But that ought to be the exact ANTI-Rand thing to do, since in her praise of Capitalism, it was not HIS building. They PAID him for a job. They had the right to change what was theirs unless it was written in a contract that they couldn't. So there she could've made a point about how artless, corporate bastards ruin shit by having too much undeserved power/money/control, and it's wrong to blow a building up, but we should fight this crap within the bounds of reason.
But no... she's got a big overdrawn speech where she acts like blowing the building up was the moral, justified thing to do. It was anti-morality AND anti-her own self. Very screwy. And that was the vision of her IDEAL man.
Sorry, if this was too long, too. Way to Galt it, bro!
-
Read it when I was young. Remember initially being very interested in what was to me a different outlook on life.
Got very uncomfortable with what I interpreted as racism (to be successful one had to be the whitest of white, the antagonists where all described as dark and ugly per my recollection). This led to my not reading any more of her books.
-
Got very uncomfortable with what I interpreted as racism (to be successful one had to be the whitest of white, the antagonists where all described as dark and ugly per my recollection). This led to my not reading any more of her books.
While I understand people disagreeing with Rand conceptually... I don't get this at all. What characters were "whitest of white" or "dark". (Good looking vs ugly... whether you agree with or not, is an extremely common protagonist/antagonist trait. I understand that one and can think of many examples.) I seem to recall most of the villains being described as sickly and pale.
The only characters I can think of that could be even remotely considered "of some other ethnicity" are Ragnar (Norwegian if I recall, debatable if that is "another ethnicity") and Francisco (from South America). Both of these characters are clearly protagonists.
So I am just curious... what characters are you referring to that depict racism?
-
Got very uncomfortable with what I interpreted as racism (to be successful one had to be the whitest of white, the antagonists where all described as dark and ugly per my recollection). This led to my not reading any more of her books.
While I understand people disagreeing with Rand conceptually... I don't get this at all.
Yeah, I don't think that's in the book at all - guessing stachesquache must be confusing it with some other book they read around the same time.
-
Sooo..... is there a Cliff's Notes version of this book? I am interested in reading it, but not interested in drawn out, repetitive parables.
-
Sooo..... is there a Cliff's Notes version of this book? I am interested in reading it, but not interested in drawn out, repetitive parables.
Cliff notes version: there is no god and the universe is full of pain and suffering. Oh, and rape is totally cool.
-
Sooo..... is there a Cliff's Notes version of this book? I am interested in reading it, but not interested in drawn out, repetitive parables.
Cliff notes version: there is no god and the universe is full of pain and suffering. Oh, and rape is totally cool.
That's The Fountainhead.
-
Um... You Libertarians do realize that Ayn Rand's philosophy evolved into Satanism as practiced by Anton LeVey's cult, right? I am not exaggerating here.
Also, what's your problem with Satanists?
Overall, I don't see what your post has to do with anything.
Because Satanists are evil, just like Objectivists (which are the same thing as Satanists).
(http://www.untuckedshirts.com/b3s/funny/speechless.gif)
HAH, perfect GIF.
-
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged as a sort of adventure story when I read it the first time in my twenties--the idea of a female character who was CEO of her own business was new and enthralling. But as it lingered in my m ind, it bothered me that there was no consideration of the environmental damage the capitalists were wreaking on their environments-- both in the steel mills of Pennsylvania and the mining hideaway of Colorado. There was also no compassion for those who are "takers" genuinely due to circumstance or illness-- what happens to the elderly or the disabled in her world?
I am always attracted to stories about the lone hero standing up to the masses, and I loved the idea of one person starting a movement that could stop the world. But in retrospect, it makes for a fun story, but doesn't have much to say about the real world, which is much more tangly and gray than the black and white world she created.
-
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
-
Ayn got it wrong. The way to combat socialism and sloth is to become a better taker than the takers, not to try and start a Utopia elsewhere.
(now pardon me while I try to engineer our million plus portfolio such that I can qualify for max ACA subsidy and cost sharing...maybe qualify for a free phone too!)
-
Ayn got it wrong. The way to combat socialism and sloth is to become a better taker than the takers, not to try and start a Utopia elsewhere.
(now pardon me while I try to engineer our million plus portfolio such that I can qualify for max ACA subsidy and cost sharing...maybe qualify for a free phone too!)
I find it amusing that when viewed from this perspective the "takers" are are the rich people who live off of other people's labor. In most political contexts, "takers" is used to refer to poor people who do the actual work of our economy, like picking fruit and mopping floors.
Though I guess if I were a fabulously wealthy ivy league elite who inherited his fortune, I might also do everything in my power to convince people that I'm actually the pinnacle of human society rather than a parasite, that it is those lowly working class folks who are "taking" from me rather than the other way around.
-
I find it amusing that when viewed from this perspective the "takers" are are the rich people who live off of other people's labor. In most political contexts, "takers" is used to refer to poor people who do the actual work of our economy, like picking fruit and mopping floors.
Though I guess if I were a fabulously wealthy ivy league elite who inherited his fortune, I might also do everything in my power to convince people that I'm actually the pinnacle of human society rather than a parasite, that it is those lowly working class folks who are "taking" from me rather than the other way around.
I didn't quite parse that. To me a taker is the person holding the "will work for food" sign on a street corner when there are three "now hiring" signs on the store fronts behind him and the guy next to him is twirling a discount mattress sign for minimum wage. The software engineer who puts in 14 hour days 70 hour weeks but hires someone to clean his house is not a taker in my book.
-
I didn't quite parse that. To me a taker is the person holding the "will work for food" sign on a street corner when there are three "now hiring" signs on the store fronts behind him
I parsed that you were highlighting how to become a taker, by becoming rich. To me a taker is someone who lives off the fruits of someone else's labors, say by "owning" a diverse basket of companies he knows very little about and takes no hand in running. Living off of dividends is taking the profit from a company and putting it in your pocket. Selling appreciated stock is taking someone else's money in exchange for a hypothetical ownership stake in a corporation, whether or not you ever worked for that company or even know anything about it.
Your example was particularly egregious, because people like you (and me) are deliberately structuring our large portfolios in such a way to get the maximum ACA subsidy. We are taking from the government dollars intended for the poor and genuinely needy. Not only are we takers because we profit without working, but we are the worst kind of takers for taking those subsidy dollars away from people who actually need that money to survive. We might as well be stealing from the cup of a street beggar. At least he's out on the street corner working for change, we're just sitting back watching the profits roll in while siphoning off the quarters from his cup.
-
Your example was particularly egregious, because people like you (and me) are deliberately structuring our large portfolios in such a way to get the maximum ACA subsidy. We are taking from the government dollars intended for the poor and genuinely needy. Not only are we takers because we profit without working, but we are the worst kind of takers for taking those subsidy dollars away from people who actually need that money to survive. We might as well be stealing from the cup of a street beggar. At least he's out on the street corner working for change, we're just sitting back watching the profits roll in while siphoning off the quarters from his cup.
Yes yes! So you understood me exactly. I used to think a bit like Ayn but now I just want to become the best taker I can be.
-
There was also no compassion for those who are "takers" genuinely due to circumstance or illness-- what happens to the elderly or the disabled in her world?
If you follow Rand's lead, you file for social security and medicare.
-
There was also no compassion for those who are "takers" genuinely due to circumstance or illness-- what happens to the elderly or the disabled in her world?
If you follow Rand's lead, you file for social security and medicare.
I never quite understood why this is used as a smear against her. She was against SS/medicare, but paid in the taxes as required.
Yes she took the benefits, but so what? If you make me participate in funding a program I don't agree with, you can be guaranteed I will be participating on the withdrawal end.
If there was some way to opt out... and she didn't ... then there would be an argument. Otherwise, I don't see it.
-
I never quite understood why this is used as a smear against her. She was against SS/medicare, but paid in the taxes as required.
Yes she took the benefits, but so what? If you make me participate in funding a program I don't agree with, you can be guaranteed I will be participating on the withdrawal end.
If there was some way to opt out... and she didn't ... then there would be an argument. Otherwise, I don't see it.
It's not a smear. It's her realization that the medical bills would've potentially ruined her even though she had substantial savings from her books. She had to accept government aid, dulling her entrepreneurial spirit, and the aid was way more than she paid in taxes (she did have lung cancer, after all, from her decision to smoke).
In other words, her recognition that all of her work, and all of her savings, weren't enough to pay for her health care surely suggests that maybe, just maybe, accepting government assistance, aka being a "moocher," is sometimes necessary when you live in the real world.
-
I never quite understood why this is used as a smear against her. She was against SS/medicare, but paid in the taxes as required.
Yes she took the benefits, but so what? If you make me participate in funding a program I don't agree with, you can be guaranteed I will be participating on the withdrawal end.
If there was some way to opt out... and she didn't ... then there would be an argument. Otherwise, I don't see it.
It's not a smear. It's her realization that the medical bills would've potentially ruined her even though she had substantial savings from her books. She had to accept government aid, dulling her entrepreneurial spirit, and the aid was way more than she paid in taxes (she did have lung cancer, after all, from her decision to smoke).
In other words, her recognition that all of her work, and all of her savings, weren't enough to pay for her health care surely suggests that maybe, just maybe, accepting government assistance, aka being a "moocher," is sometimes necessary when you live in the real world.
She took SS/Medicare for the same reason that big, highly-profitable corporations take corporate welfare, because capitalism is only really for the lower classes in the USA, while Socialism is reserved for the truly wealthy.
-
I never quite understood why this is used as a smear against her. She was against SS/medicare, but paid in the taxes as required.
Yes she took the benefits, but so what? If you make me participate in funding a program I don't agree with, you can be guaranteed I will be participating on the withdrawal end.
If there was some way to opt out... and she didn't ... then there would be an argument. Otherwise, I don't see it.
It's not a smear. It's her realization that the medical bills would've potentially ruined her even though she had substantial savings from her books. She had to accept government aid, dulling her entrepreneurial spirit, and the aid was way more than she paid in taxes (she did have lung cancer, after all, from her decision to smoke).
In other words, her recognition that all of her work, and all of her savings, weren't enough to pay for her health care surely suggests that maybe, just maybe, accepting government assistance, aka being a "moocher," is sometimes necessary when you live in the real world.
I have a totally different view of that.
I am no fan of medicare/SS. Not at all. (I'm not dumb enough to think you should just "turn off the spigot". Even if you wanted to dismantle it, it would be a decades long ordeal... but I digress...)
If you had given me the option to opt out 30 years ago: I would have jumped at it. (And I mean a true opt-out, where I would receive that 15% in my paycheck to invest as I saw fit.)
But... I'm bloody close to retiring now. I've paid in for almost 35 years. At this point I don't see it as government assistance... I see it as the ROI on my forced investment. (I know that's not how it's funded... but that's still how I see it.)
SS in particular is extremely progressive. Those that earn more get much less from their pay in than those that earn less. It is extremely steeply graduated. At the upper end of earnings... it's not assistance at all. It's far from it.
Medicare is slightly different... whether it is assistance or not depends on your health needs. But again: it's an insurance plan you were forced to purchase. If you force me to purchase it: I will use it.
-
If you had given me the option to opt out 30 years ago: I would have jumped at it. (And I mean a true opt-out, where I would receive that 15% in my paycheck to invest as I saw fit.)
But... I'm bloody close to retiring now. I've paid in for almost 35 years. At this point I don't see it as government assistance... I see it as the ROI on my forced investment. (I know that's not how it's funded... but that's still how I see it.)
Yeah, understood. It'd be foolish not to take it. However, when you're stridently against government aid or intervention and you write it and preach it and proclaim that you should never compromise your ideals and that such programs are "evil," don't you think it's significant that she eventually did take it?
Ignore any potential hypocrisy of it and reflect on why she signed up. Even with her genius and working hard, she still wasn't self sufficient enough. In the Gulch, she would've spent down all of her money and then the prescriptions would've gone unfilled and the doctor visits would've stopped. She would have likely died destitute.
In relation to universal health care, Hayek wrote,
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
-
Ignore any potential hypocrisy of it and reflect on why she signed up. Even with her genius and working hard, she still wasn't self sufficient enough. In the Gulch, she would've spent down all of her money and then the prescriptions would've gone unfilled and the doctor visits would've stopped. She would have likely died destitute.
From what I've read, she actually didn't sign up... Someone that had power of attorney for her did -- with her protesting all the way. (Again: I don't get it. I'd stand up and say "They made me participate, so I'm getting my money back.")
But yeah... I also don't get why she didn't have sufficient funds. I would blindly assume (and that's what I'm doing) she made significant amounts of money from books and lectures. I can only assume she had her own hedonic adaptations.
-
I can only assume she had her own hedonic adaptations.
Oh MAN did she ever. Google Rand's infidelities and be amazed at the small harem Rand was financially supporting for most of her life.
-
I can only assume she had her own hedonic adaptations.
Oh MAN did she ever. Google Rand's infidelities and be amazed at the small harem Rand was financially supporting for most of her life.
I've been on the edges of that subculture for > 30 years. I've heard all those stories. She definitely had some odd ways about her and was (apparently) able to sit down and "rationally explain" to everyone involved (including her husband). Yeah, I've always found that a little odd.
-
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged as a sort of adventure story when I read it the first time in my twenties--the idea of a female character who was CEO of her own business was new and enthralling. But as it lingered in my m ind, it bothered me that there was no consideration of the environmental damage the capitalists were wreaking on their environments-- both in the steel mills of Pennsylvania and the mining hideaway of Colorado. There was also no compassion for those who are "takers" genuinely due to circumstance or illness-- what happens to the elderly or the disabled in her world?
I am always attracted to stories about the lone hero standing up to the masses, and I loved the idea of one person starting a movement that could stop the world. But in retrospect, it makes for a fun story, but doesn't have much to say about the real world, which is much more tangly and gray than the black and white world she created.
this pretty much sums up my thoughts on it, too. it was an interesting read (other than the interminable Galt speech) and a new viewpoint I hadn't been exposed to much at the time I read it (before senior year of college). but the characters were so simplistic it was annoying (and I know it's just an allegory, but still annoying), and the story world was too simplistic/black and white for the ideas to be directly applicable to the real world.
At its core, Objectivism has the same fundamental flaw as Marx's Socialism in why it doesn't work. Human nature and sin. It's why Rand's own protagonists are hypocritical to her own ideals. They can't even function rationally otherwise, even in fiction.
exactly!
-
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
-
I always thought that if the prominent, successful, "important people" walked away from their duties, other people would just step in. No problemo. The graveyard is full of "indispensable" people, isn't it? I mean, at least that's what they thought about themselves at the time. (But the world kept spinning anyway.)
-
Sooo..... is there a Cliff's Notes version of this book? I am interested in reading it, but not interested in drawn out, repetitive parables.
Google the money speech that the character Francisco D'Anconia gives and it'll give you a substantial taste.
I personally love it. There is a lot of good that can be gleaned out of that book.
-
Holy necroposting, Batman!
-
I think this meme is a great review of this book.
Enjoy Rand's work as a story, not as a prescription for your life.
PS. My wife and her first husband were active with one of the Randian factions in the 70s. She has nothing good to say about a single one of the leaders that she met and was glad to no longer deal with them.
-
What's really great are the completely hilarious movies.
With each one you get to play a game called 'who the hell is this actor playing?' because the cast changes each time, and they don't look alike. Hank Reardon in Part 1 is a blonde model. In Part 2 he's a gravelly voiced average guy. Welsey Mouch goes from a stout older guy with fantastic hair to a bald 40-year-old.
The shit's hilarious!
And don't get me started on the character dynamics. Okay, you got me started!
When Reardon is done humping his wife as she just lays there you can rightly think she's the problem....until he has sex with Dagny, where it seems like this ideal woman could be any other hole in the wall for the steel man.
And then there are scenes where they completely botch basic storytelling. Reardon sees Dagny on a job site and says, "you look like you fit right in here" as she wears heels and a suit in the middle of nowhere while walking on railroad ties.
They don't even get the monologues rights. Reardon's one before the tribunal is well done, but at James Taggart's wedding, Francisco (who was like 6' 5" in Part 1 and is Esai Morales in Part 2) gives his money speech. In the book it was interesting as he was having a polite discussion with other guests, and solidifies him as an intelligent hero. In the movie, he interrupts the groom's very brief remarks, making him a giant fucking asshole.
Point is: Watch the movies! They're amazing.
-
I am happy that I read the book (or listened to it). But it was WAY to long and most of the time, pretty stupid.
Too bad, she couldn't make her point rooted in reality. She needed this quasi dictatorship board, to make the plot happen. At one point the evil people sit together and one guy says: "Hey, our plan is stupid, this will never work!" and they all go like "yeah, who cares, lets do it!"
All citizen are stupid, because they will vote for the most stupid moocher who is clearly not helping them.
Oh, and a magic motor. Of course...
-
To anyone who enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, may I suggest reading Atlas Snubbed (https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Snubbed-Ken-Krawchuk-ebook/dp/B00KI10HSQ), the parody sequel by Ken Krawchuck.
Despite being a parody, it's well-written and works as a novel in its own right. It's sympathetic to the original and extends her philosophy in a more practical and humane way. The author brings in lots of fresh ideas and employs some original and creative thinking to sort out the catastrophe that Ayn Rand's novel ended with.
Atlas Snubbed was a satisfying read, and I think it might even be the better book of the two, but it's a followup and you need to have read Atlas Shrugged first to appreciate it.
From my review at Amazon: "I very much enjoyed this book. It's a masterful parody of Atlas Shrugged - it lampoons the original characters and also the writing style of the original book. In addition, it weaves a great story around the characters that we know and love or hate from the original book."
-
To anyone who enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, may I suggest reading Atlas Snubbed (https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Snubbed-Ken-Krawchuk-ebook/dp/B00KI10HSQ), the parody sequel by Ken Krawchuck.
Never heard of it. Thanks for the reco.
-
Thanks for the reco.
You're welcome, Chris. Let us know whether you like it!
-
I didn't quite parse that. To me a taker is the person holding the "will work for food" sign on a street corner when there are three "now hiring" signs on the store fronts behind him
I parsed that you were highlighting how to become a taker, by becoming rich. To me a taker is someone who lives off the fruits of someone else's labors, say by "owning" a diverse basket of companies he knows very little about and takes no hand in running. Living off of dividends is taking the profit from a company and putting it in your pocket. Selling appreciated stock is taking someone else's money in exchange for a hypothetical ownership stake in a corporation, whether or not you ever worked for that company or even know anything about it.
Another way I've heard people making the distinction between makers and takers are those who actually pay federal taxes vs. those who receive benefits from government programs paid for by federal taxes. Taxation is a forced redistribution of wealth from those that have to those that don't. I think it stems from a deep seated resentment of the poor and destitute, who are often misportrayed as lazy.
A few years ago we had a public discussion of our university's health plan. One member of the audience stood up to share her disagreement with extending health care to same sex couples. She didn't like the idea that her premiums were being raised to cover the extension of coverage others whom she did not identify with. I wonder what she would have said if a man in the audience objected to having to pay higher premiums for pap smears or a childless couple suggested the plan should no longer cover expenses associated with pregnancy or children because they would like to have lower premiums. I can't help but wonder if she really understood what insurance is.
It reminds me of a joke on the Simpsons where Lenny likens paying for insurance as akin to a lottery where people who become seriously ill win the jackpot compared to the other dupes who paid into the system without ever becoming sick.
-
@rudged
I have tried to tell people that many military families are on food stamps, but it's like I'm saying nothing. They might say, "I don't agree with that," meaning they don't approve, but then swing back into a tangent about how people need to get off their butts and work.
Uh, they are working; they're in the military.
-
What's really great are the completely hilarious movies.
With each one you get to play a game called 'who the hell is this actor playing?' because the cast changes each time, and they don't look alike. Hank Reardon in Part 1 is a blonde model. In Part 2 he's a gravelly voiced average guy. Welsey Mouch goes from a stout older guy with fantastic hair to a bald 40-year-old.
The shit's hilarious!
And don't get me started on the character dynamics. Okay, you got me started!
When Reardon is done humping his wife as she just lays there you can rightly think she's the problem....until he has sex with Dagny, where it seems like this ideal woman could be any other hole in the wall for the steel man.
And then there are scenes where they completely botch basic storytelling. Reardon sees Dagny on a job site and says, "you look like you fit right in here" as she wears heels and a suit in the middle of nowhere while walking on railroad ties.
They don't even get the monologues rights. Reardon's one before the tribunal is well done, but at James Taggart's wedding, Francisco (who was like 6' 5" in Part 1 and is Esai Morales in Part 2) gives his money speech. In the book it was interesting as he was having a polite discussion with other guests, and solidifies him as an intelligent hero. In the movie, he interrupts the groom's very brief remarks, making him a giant fucking asshole.
Point is: Watch the movies! They're amazing.
I've never finished Atlas Shrugged but I did read the Fountainhead years ago. It was interesting but the characters were just too unrealistic and one-sided.
My wife and I watched the first two movies but with the third we stopped about 20-30 minutes in. I'm the type of person to finish basically every movie or book I start but that third movie was just terrible. As my wife pointed out in the third movie when they were actually in Galt's Gulch - there were no children. How exactly do you sustain this utopian society without having families and children?
-
I discovered Atlas Shrugged when I was in my early 20s. It had a *huge* impact on my life in the following ways:
-Rearden's situation with a family that demands handouts based on his success was similar to the worldview I had been exposed to growing up. One of my parents had always been quick to grab a handout or anything for free, because "we were poor and deserved it". And anyone who had more than us was spoken of with contempt. I didn't realize how uncomfortable I'd been with that outlook until I read Rearden's dialogue with his family.
-The book made me realize it is ok to enjoy working! Related to the point above, I'd grown up with the goal of avoiding work as much as possible because I was punished (given more work for no pay) whenever I did something well or efficiently. Then at 24, being on my own in a new city with a full-time job I came to realize how much I love the feeling of accomplishment from doing a task well and getting paid for it. (As well as the mustacian side of realizing I didn't need to spend much of that money to make me happy)
-The philosophy on sex in the book was surprisingly progressive. Particularly Francisco's speech and what Dagny says to Hank after their first night.
As a side note: the drama is fantastic. There is a great American road trip! Dagny sleeps with All The Men! There's courtroom drama! There's a mystery that gets solved (who is making all the producers quit)! The final section where the government is hunting Galt and Dagny just can't stay away and suddenly everyone is in an action movie is like Rand giving us a bonus for reading to the end!
I picked up the book and didn't realize at the time how incendiary it was. Definitely found out when I tried to bring it up in conversation and got looks of disgust or quick changes of topic. However, I haven't met anyone yet (aside from you lovely people) who is willing to discuss the actual book. Yes I do understand there's a lot to be critical of, but if you're curious just give it a shot. As others mentioned, if you're reading for the story just skip Galt's speech and those horrible movies... and sorry for the spoilers above ;)
-
...Dagny sleeps with All The Men!
Well, only with the alpha men! Steady Eddie misses out. (Read Ken Krawchuk's "Atlas Snubbed" to see how it turns out after Dagny has tired of the alphas :)
-
Haha you got me there. Maybe I’d say she slept with all the Men, and Eddie is merely a man. Although I think he might’ve exploded if she gave him any personal attention.
Guess I’ll just have to read that book and find out :)
-
What's really great are the completely hilarious movies.
With each one you get to play a game called 'who the hell is this actor playing?' because the cast changes each time, and they don't look alike. Hank Reardon in Part 1 is a blonde model. In Part 2 he's a gravelly voiced average guy. Welsey Mouch goes from a stout older guy with fantastic hair to a bald 40-year-old.
The shit's hilarious!
And don't get me started on the character dynamics. Okay, you got me started!
When Reardon is done humping his wife as she just lays there you can rightly think she's the problem....until he has sex with Dagny, where it seems like this ideal woman could be any other hole in the wall for the steel man.
And then there are scenes where they completely botch basic storytelling. Reardon sees Dagny on a job site and says, "you look like you fit right in here" as she wears heels and a suit in the middle of nowhere while walking on railroad ties.
They don't even get the monologues rights. Reardon's one before the tribunal is well done, but at James Taggart's wedding, Francisco (who was like 6' 5" in Part 1 and is Esai Morales in Part 2) gives his money speech. In the book it was interesting as he was having a polite discussion with other guests, and solidifies him as an intelligent hero. In the movie, he interrupts the groom's very brief remarks, making him a giant fucking asshole.
Point is: Watch the movies! They're amazing.
I've never finished Atlas Shrugged but I did read the Fountainhead years ago. It was interesting but the characters were just too unrealistic and one-sided.
My wife and I watched the first two movies but with the third we stopped about 20-30 minutes in. I'm the type of person to finish basically every movie or book I start but that third movie was just terrible. As my wife pointed out in the third movie when they were actually in Galt's Gulch - there were no children. How exactly do you sustain this utopian society without having families and children?
In Rand's view, that is Utopia: no kids, and every dude is like, 'it's okay she went from sitting on my face to his, because I'm responsible for my own happiness.' [I'm responsible for my own happiness is an actual quote from the novel from a guy each time Dagny goes from one dude to his friend, and I'm guessing from Rand's husband in real life as she took a young lover].
Jordan Peterson said it best when he said of these books, "Rand is a terrible novelist. Every good guy is totally good, and every bad guy is totally bad."
-
What's really great are the completely hilarious movies.
With each one you get to play a game called 'who the hell is this actor playing?' because the cast changes each time, and they don't look alike. Hank Reardon in Part 1 is a blonde model. In Part 2 he's a gravelly voiced average guy. Welsey Mouch goes from a stout older guy with fantastic hair to a bald 40-year-old.
The shit's hilarious!
And don't get me started on the character dynamics. Okay, you got me started!
When Reardon is done humping his wife as she just lays there you can rightly think she's the problem....until he has sex with Dagny, where it seems like this ideal woman could be any other hole in the wall for the steel man.
And then there are scenes where they completely botch basic storytelling. Reardon sees Dagny on a job site and says, "you look like you fit right in here" as she wears heels and a suit in the middle of nowhere while walking on railroad ties.
They don't even get the monologues rights. Reardon's one before the tribunal is well done, but at James Taggart's wedding, Francisco (who was like 6' 5" in Part 1 and is Esai Morales in Part 2) gives his money speech. In the book it was interesting as he was having a polite discussion with other guests, and solidifies him as an intelligent hero. In the movie, he interrupts the groom's very brief remarks, making him a giant fucking asshole.
Point is: Watch the movies! They're amazing.
I've never finished Atlas Shrugged but I did read the Fountainhead years ago. It was interesting but the characters were just too unrealistic and one-sided.
My wife and I watched the first two movies but with the third we stopped about 20-30 minutes in. I'm the type of person to finish basically every movie or book I start but that third movie was just terrible. As my wife pointed out in the third movie when they were actually in Galt's Gulch - there were no children. How exactly do you sustain this utopian society without having families and children?
In Rand's view, that is Utopia: no kids, and every dude is like, 'it's okay she went from sitting on my face to his, because I'm responsible for my own happiness.' [I'm responsible for my own happiness is an actual quote from the novel from a guy each time Dagny goes from one dude to his friend, and I'm guessing from Rand's husband in real life as she took a young lover].
Jordan Peterson said it best when he said of these books, "Rand is a terrible novelist. Every good guy is totally good, and every bad guy is totally bad."
This makes perfect sense. You write about what you know well. Having a good understanding of human behaviour tends to preclude Libertarian beliefs as they're incompatible at a fundamental level.
-
Having a good understanding of human behaviour tends to preclude Libertarian beliefs as they're incompatible at a fundamental level.
A couple of years ago I picked up Milton Friedmans' book, Capitalism and Freedom, to re-read after a few decades. The logic in it is so compelling. I found myself swept away with it.
A day or so later I discovered the website, www.NotAlwaysRight.com, in which retail employees describe their interactions with their customers -- in which the customer is not always right.
Emotionally, it was like being hit by a tidal wave of reality. What the hell was I thinking? Rational actors on the economic scale! It's laughable! So many people have so many neurotic or ego or insecurity problems that they'll never let rational thinking win out. We see that in folks all the time.
-
Maybe I completely missed the part in the book that pointed out kindness and voluntarily assisting someone as being maligned but moreso those acts that are mandated at the point of a gun or via that threat of jail and IP confiscation.
If that happened, he'd just be Daley.
How prescient.
-
tee hee
i have my moments
-
Atlas Shrugged...
A world in which corporate leaders never screw up, their products never fail, workers are completely safe, and as a result no regulation is needed. I hate it whenever people use this book as an example of anything other than fantasy.
-
Yeah, understood. It'd be foolish not to take it. However, when you're stridently against government aid or intervention and you write it and preach it and proclaim that you should never compromise your ideals and that such programs are "evil," don't you think it's significant that she eventually did take it?
As far as the book goes, I think she addressed this in the character of Ragnar Danneskjold. He was a pirate (a profession typically seen as criminally parasitic), but he's one of the 'good guys' since he only takes back what was forced away from him in the first place.
-
Atlas Shrugged...
A world in which corporate leaders never screw up, their products never fail, workers are completely safe, and as a result no regulation is needed. I hate it whenever people use this book as an example of anything other than fantasy.
Put that way, orcs are more believable. We've seen brownshirts in action.
-
Atlas Shrugged...
A world in which corporate leaders never screw up, their products never fail, workers are completely safe, and as a result no regulation is needed. I hate it whenever people use this book as an example of anything other than fantasy.
Put that way, orcs are more believable. We've seen brownshirts in action.
Yes we have.
Goddamned UPS.
-
Atlas Shrugged...
A world in which corporate leaders never screw up, their products never fail, workers are completely safe, and as a result no regulation is needed. I hate it whenever people use this book as an example of anything other than fantasy.
Put that way, orcs are more believable. We've seen brownshirts in action.
Yes we have.
Goddamned UPS.
Nono, those are brownshorts.
-
I first read Atlas Shrugged when I was 26 and loved it. My favourite part was when the government offered Wesley Mouch’s job to John Galt, but Galt declines by saying that kind of job shouldn’t exist, confounding everyone in the room.
I saw a lot of parallels between government figures in Atlas Shrugged and politicians who were making moves I disagreed with.
I thought the first movie was really good, but the budgets became progressively smaller in the next 2 movies. The 3rd movie was particularly bad.
-
I first read Atlas Shrugged when I was 26 and loved it. My favourite part was when the government offered Wesley Mouch’s job to John Galt, but Galt declines by saying that kind of job shouldn’t exist, confounding everyone in the room.
I saw a lot of parallels between government figures in Atlas Shrugged and politicians who were making moves I disagreed with.
I thought the first movie was really good, but the budgets became progressively smaller in the next 2 movies. The 3rd movie was particularly bad.
The 1st movie had a solid ending, for sure.
-
Great thread. :) I remember being really bored and broke during the summer of 2004: I spent most of it fighting my way through the ridiculously long and hilariously poorly written book called "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard. (Huh, just looked it up and it's actually shorter than Atlas Shrugged.) I'm very curious how different my worldview would've been if I'd picked up Atlas Shrugged instead... My life turned out pretty well, so I'm glad I didn't read it after all. :)
For those of you asking very reasonable questions about what life in the Gulch would've looked like, I can't recommend this book highly enough: A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears) (https://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Walks-Into-Bear-Liberate-ebook/dp/B083J1FXY8/). It's a non-fiction book, and the premise is simple: Libertarians finally join forces to take over a tiny town in rural New Hampshire. Once they control the local government, they start cutting all sorts of municipal budgets, including the money to deal with wildlife... Some of them also decide that rules don't apply to them, so they start feeding local bears. O_o The end result is a bear invasion hahahaha
The book is really well written, equal parts soulful and hilarious, and the real-life people it describes are fascinating, and far more complex than what I'd heard Randian characters ever were. I can't recommend it highly enough. :) (Also, it features a battle between a bear and a llama!)
-
Great thread. :) I remember being really bored and broke during the summer of 2004: I spent most of it fighting my way through the ridiculously long and hilariously poorly written book called "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard. (Huh, just looked it up and it's actually shorter than Atlas Shrugged.) I'm very curious how different my worldview would've been if I'd picked up Atlas Shrugged instead... My life turned out pretty well, so I'm glad I didn't read it after all. :)
For those of you asking very reasonable questions about what life in the Gulch would've looked like, I can't recommend this book highly enough: A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears) (https://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Walks-Into-Bear-Liberate-ebook/dp/B083J1FXY8/). It's a non-fiction book, and the premise is simple: Libertarians finally join forces to take over a tiny town in rural New Hampshire. Once they control the local government, they start cutting all sorts of municipal budgets, including the money to deal with wildlife... Some of them also decide that rules don't apply to them, so they start feeding local bears. O_o The end result is a bear invasion hahahaha
The book is really well written, equal parts soulful and hilarious, and the real-life people it describes are fascinating, and far more complex than what I'd heard Randian characters ever were. I can't recommend it highly enough. :) (Also, it features a battle between a bear and a llama!)
Libertarian policies simply do not work in the real world, and seem to lead to catastrophe whenever attempted.
-
Libertarian policies simply do not work in the real world, and seem to lead to catastrophe whenever attempted.
In other news: sky blue, water wet... more details at eleven.
-
Why on earth does this thread keep getting revived? It’s now 7 years old…
-
Why on earth does this thread keep getting revived? It’s now 7 years old…
Probably because a lot of people have opinions on Ayn Rand and/or Atlas Shrugged. :) Rand was a strange human being, and her books are not masterpieces, but the fact that people still talk about them more than 60 years later... That's a testament of endurance, of sorts. How many of us will create something that will get discussed long after we're gone?..
More tactically, :) this thread got revived in 2019 after a 5-year hiatus, then kept getting updated every few months. I replied to a post that was only a month old. I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread roll into 2025 and beyond haha
-
Obligatory....Top is in!
-
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
I used this quote to great amusement on a date last night (we were both bitching about libertarians). Sadly not so interested in a second.
-
I'm just gonna leave this here (http://www.equip.org/articles/was-ayn-rand-right/).
Religion or no, it's a well thought out skewering of Objectivism and Rand's concept of "capitalism" with subtle points that are usually wasted with Randian "philosophy".
Also, by Rand's logic, any and all advice and assistance that you've received in these forums to improve your life and save money? Yeah, we're the socialist scum she railed against. I don't know about you, but I think a few people here would be offended to be slapped down and insulted for acts of kindness and altruism towards yourself. Me? I'll take it as a compliment.
It's been ten years or so since I read Atlas Shrugged but if I remember correctly the socialists of the book did everything they did for every reason besides altruism. They wanted Fame, Fortune, and Power and believed that altruistic acts would bring those things. They would also ignore the evils they did to accomplish those goals.
The Objectivists would do charity in a way that wouldn't utterly destroy themselves.
-
What the actual fuck??!!
-
Charity - "the voluntary giving of help to those in need". This is contrary to the fundamental tenets of Objectivism . . . which is to uphold rational selfishness exclusively.
I don't understand the part where you say "The Objectivists would do charity" - it's an action antithetical to their beliefs. Why would they act this way?