Why ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Matters
by Mike BaronWhen I mentioned to friends I was reading Atlas Shrugged their response was uniform: “Oh that. I read it in college but now I have moved on to adult subjects.” These were liberal friends, you understand, and I couldn’t help but wonder why they would want to discourage me from reading a literary classic that is selling better now than at any time in its history. In fact, it has recently moved up to become Amazon’s 37th best-selling novel. Last week it was 44. By the time you read this it will have moved higher.
The reason becomes immediately apparent upon reading. It might have been written yesterday. Rand’s description of a socialist state taken over by “looters,” people who cannot create or produce but who seize power under the rubric of “fairness” is so spot-on accurate of today’s administration it’s scary. At over one thousand pages long, Atlas Shrugged is not a weekend read and made me question whether my fun-loving liberal friends actually read it, or read the Cliff’s Notes version which is also selling at unprecedented levels.
In a fictional United States, three giants of industry struggle with a government of venal bureaucrats, “looters,” Rand calls them, that closely resemble our present administration. The three industrialists are Dagny Taggart, Vice President in Charge of Operations for mighty Taggart Transcontinental, steelmaker Henry Rearden whose Rearden Miracle Metal puts steel to shame, and the Chilean play boy Francisco D’Anconia who inherited the world’s richest copper mines and proceeds to turn them into dust, shocking all who know him and invested in his supposedly rock-solid enterprise.
The reasons D’Anconia liquidates his empire in secret become increasing clear as the new administration strips away individual rights.
These are larger-than-life characters acting out their passion on an international stage. Has there ever been a more dynamic woman literary character than Dagny? There’s a reason Angelina Jolie is eager to play her in the upcoming film. (This will only intensify rumblings that our Most Holy of Hollywood Couples are secret libertarians.)
Dagny meets her match in Henry Rearden whose measure of a man’s worth is what he can produce. When Rearden’s miracle metal puts other steel companies in danger, they band together, start buying off politicians and go to Washington. Rearden is a man of utter rectitude whose word is gold. He hates incompetence more than anything. His men love him and willingly give their all because they know he values their contribution and will reward them accordingly.
It’s an enormous story with an enormous backdrop revealing Rand’s vast knowledge of steel-making and railroads. She slips her objectivist philosophy into the narrative seamlessly by showing — by talking, not so much. Characters make speeches that go on for days, most notably, D’Anconia’s passionate defense of money, any paragraph of which would have served as a synecdoche for the whole thing, and John Galt’s “I Am John Galt” speech which is 20,000 words and literally takes three hours to deliver.
Rand anticipated the situation in which we now find ourselves.
Dagny holds a press conference to announce she’s leaving Taggart Transcontinental to build a spur railroad called the John Galt Line:
The reporters who came to the press conference in the office of the John Galt Line were young men who had been trained to think that their job consisted of concealing from the world the nature of its events. It was their daily duty to serve as audience for some public figure who made utterances about the public good, in phrases carefully chosen to convey no meaning… They could not understand the interview now being given to them.
The government comes to see Dagny’s feckless brother Jim, President of Taggart Transcontinental to complain that TT’s superior rails and service are endangering the other railroads.
“Well consider the unions’ side of it,” whines one of Atlas’ interchangeable politicians. “Maybe you can’t afford to give them a raise, but how can they afford to exist when the cost of living has shot sky-high? They’ve got to eat, don’t they? That comes first, railroad or no railroad.’ Mr. Weatherby’s tone had a kind of placid righteousness, as if he were reciting a formula required to convey another meaning, clear to all of them…
“And then consider the public. The rates you’re charging were established at a time when everybody was making money. But the way things are now, the cost of transportation has become a burden nobody can afford. People are screaming about it all over the country.”
So the government forces TT to increase wages to the unions while lowering rates to the customers “in the public interest.”
The delightfully named Stanley Mouch (”Mooch”) serves as First Secretary to the mysterious Mr. Thompson, the head of state.
Mouch had summoned them all to Washington, as his friends and personal advisers, for a private, unofficial conference on the national crisis. But watching him, they were unable to decide whether his manner was overbearing or whining, whether he was threatening them or pleading for their help.
“Fact is,” said Mr. Weatherby primly, in a statistical tone of voice, “that in the twelve month period ending on the first of this year, the rate of business failures has doubled as compared with the preceding twelve month period. Since the first of this year, it has trebled.”
“Be sure they think it’s their own fault,” said Dr. Ferris casually.
“Huh?” said Wesley Mouch, his eyes darting to Ferris.
“Whatever you do, don’t apologize,” said Dr. Ferris. “Make them feel guilty.”
“But it is their own fault,” said Eugene Lawson, turning aggressively to Dr. Ferris. “It’s their lack of social spirit. They refuse to recognize that production is not a private choice, but a public duty. They have no right to fail, no matter what conditions happen to come up. They’ve got to go on producing. It’s a social imperative… There’s no such thing as a persona matter-or a personal life. That’s what we’ve got to force them to learn.”
“Well, if you want to talk practice,” said Fred Kinnan, “then let me tell you that we can’t worry about businessmen at a time like this. What we’ve got to think about is jobs… If you want my advice-ohm, I know you won’t go for it, but it’s just a thought-issue a directive making it compulsory to add, say, one-third more men to every payroll in the country.”
Can’t you just see Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begala, Obama, Pelosi and Axelrod saying these things? Speaking of Pelosi:
Last week I almost quit. It was over Chick’s Special. Mr. Chick Morrison of Washington, whoever the hell he is, has gone on a speaking tour of the whole country-to speak about the directive to build up peoples’ morale… He demanded a special train for himself and party-a sleeper, a parlor car and a diner with barroom and lounge. The Unification Board gave him permission to travel at a hundred miles an hour-by reason, the ruling said, of this being a non-profit journey. Well so it is. It’s just a journey to talk people into continuing to break their backs at making profits in order to support men who are superior by reason of not making any.
So who is John Galt? He’s one of three pupils of the great moral philosopher Hugh Akston. The other two are D’Anconia and the pirate Ragnar Danneskjold. Galt is the inventor of a new energy source that would revolutionize civilization. But rather than turn it over to the government, he walks away. It is Galt who vows to stop the motor of the world. And he does.
Ragnar is Robin Hood in reverse. “Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.” Robin Hood, you see, stole from men who knew how to create wealth and gave it to people who didn’t.
Ragnar tells Rearden:
I cannot compute all the money that has been extorted from you-in hidden taxes, in regulations, in wasted time, in lost effort, in energy spent to overcome artificial obstacles. I cannot compute the sum, but if you wish to see its magnitude-look around you. The extent of the misery now spreading through this once prosperous country is the extent of the injustice which you have suffered.
Dagny picks up a hobo who used to be a factory worker. He tells her what happened:
We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it-and because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being.
The government under Stanley Mouch draws up a bill called Directive 10-289 which, “in the name of the general welfare,” forbids anyone to quit their jobs under penalty of prison terms. All business must remain in operation. If the owners try to retire, the industry will be nationalized.
All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights.
The government sends polite goons around to collect the certificates. The directive also forbids any new inventions. But the National Science Institute does manage to come up with an original idea of its own: a sonic ray that turns flesh to mush.
The government nationalizes health care:
I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kinds of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun.
I could go on. Rand certainly does. This book might have profited by some serious editing. This was her last work of fiction before devoting herself entirely to laying out her philosophy of objectivism, which holds that there are absolute truths and objective means of measuring them. The very word “objectivist” is anathema to liberals who deal in endless “sophisticated” variations of gray.
The solution Rand offers is for the men and women of industry and business to simply withdraw their skills and energies from the market rather than place them in the service of an evil socialist state. In “Atlas Shrugged” they go to a secret valley in the mountains. In real life, millions of Americans are reevaluating their efforts in light of the Obama administration’s punitive and senseless tax and spend policy. It is a viable option and one which every right-minded American must consider. And by right-minded, I mean Americans who understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to whom the pursuit of happiness is holy but the guarantee of happiness is a cruel joke perpetrated by the present gang of looters in the White House and Congress who couldn’t make a buck if their lives depended on it.







Subscribe via RSS
442 Comments
Ayn Rand was an intellectual giant who, though being of a totally different religious and belief system saw the Christian concept of modern business, as invented by the Templar Knights in the 12th century as the absolute
in a modern society. Therefore, she came up with Objectivism, which essentially is Christian fellowship without the dogma and advocated one's own self interest as the great bond we can have with one another.
In the SpecOps community you will find many devotees of Rand, so it's not just entrepenurial sorts. Her reasoned and passionate rebuttals of collectivism have always rung true; today more than ever. If one listens closely they wil hear the murmur of many John Galts right now…
I need to get around to reading that I just have to look the other way when it comes to her atheism I suppose.
the atheism isn't the issue- it's the fact she was able to intellectualize the concepts of God, honor, nobility… had she been Christian, or even observant, it wouldn't carry the same dispassionate intellectual heft an outsider can bring. Read it- and 'Atlas Shrugged' as well. Watch the Gary Cooper film on TCM, too. Angelina Jolie wants to do the film; she has enough clout to bring it to screen. And, she would make a potent Dagny…
Off topic: I wanted to let you guys know how much I love the variety and content on the site.
Also, a question: I visited some older posts and they had no comments or way to comment? Until I visited this post I thought perhaps you'd disabled that functionality…
Vic
If you have a problem with the atheist thing, it has help me tremendously to read the Stoic philosophers, Epictetus, Epicurean, and Aristotle, there are many more. There seems to be a correlation between these intellectual writers and philosophers and their ideas of logic, science and ethics without the religious overtones or religious bashing.
John Piper, a reformed Christian theologian and "Christian Hedonist," considers Rand as one of his influences. The Lord truly works in mysterious ways. If you have time, Piper's essay "The Ethics of Ayn Rand" is worth reading.
It's located here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articl...
Another interesting Christian-Objectivist is John W. Robbins. His book "Without a Prayer" is a devastating limb-by-limb take down of Objectivism from a reformed, Calvinist worldview. Worth a read, for Rand lovers and haters.
I live in a little town in Arizona that got Galted about twenty-five years ago. We have one of the biggest copper mines in the world, with major deposits of gold, silver, and molybdenum besides. The union (a thoroughly corrupt group) decided to strike. The company said that they couldn't make money if they gave a raise at that time. The union ignored them. Then, the company said that they would close the mine for good if there was a strike. The union called their bluff and struck. The company wasn't kidding. They closed the mine and put the whole town out of work. Population dropped from around 8,000 to just over a thousand. . Now, we have a lot of retirees, some artists, the odd drug smuggler and the border patrol, but never got back to even half of what the town was before. The mine stand idle, waiting for socialism to go away so the great wealth it contains can be profitably brought to the surface.
Anyone who thinks Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy should drop by sometime and see what a capital strike looks like in real time.
Ayn Rand saw the future, and it wasn't pretty. I imagine she would have taken strong and vocal political action if she had witnessed what we are seeing now. This new american "king" as he seems to think he has been proclaimed, is addicted top his own adulatoray press, and despite many proclamations to the contrary has no clothes at all. The shocking thing is his popularity and the incredibly vapid press corps who seems to be so caught up in the worship Barack frenzy that they have forgotten how to ask anything even remotely tough of him. AND if anyone opposes him that person is somehow unpatriotic, or rooting for him to fail. I disagree. I throw the same reasoning they used back at them. I fight what I know to be wrong no matter how they gussy it up, and I am not about to sit still while they pick the US treasury over and bankrupt us for foolhardy programs they could never pass one at a time. Vilify the successful, while appealing to us-the newly vilified- for help in investing in the market to save his sorry excuse for a presidency? Not on your life bub. The idiot talked down the economy for months, until BILL CLINTON wised him up. Yeah, he is a real sharp one allright. Somehow our new emergency is so exigent that we cannot have a constitutionally guaranteed debate? Isnt that what the dems were so uptight about the war about? I know, we'll blame bush for our current troubles, and then spend three times what he did while saying it's all his fault. Twisted logic of the first order. Bush lied and people died? Now the shoe is on the the other foot, and they want us to look the other way? Not happening here. If one takes the time to look, one can see Barack Hussein Obama is nothing but a grinning fool with an incredible gift for reading a tele-prompter and spewing populist pap fed to him by his cronies-all of whom are orders of magnitude sharper than he is. Every time he speaks extemporaneously he falls apart and falls into mostly unintelligible, ums, ers, ahs, and "now listens", like he is somehow our father…while he tries to collect what he calls his thoughts. He made fools of the entire US and we the people let it happen. If people cringed at Bush's abuse of powers, how can they sit silent while this guy makes bush like a junior leaguer when it comes to defiling the constitutional protections we are supposed to enjoy? The press should be taken out and shot for their silence on this in my opinion. The funny thing is, the dems have taken the onus upon themselves of being responsible for perhaps the biggest loss of individual liberties in Americas entire 200+ year existense, and it will have come at the hands of those who call themselves "progressive". I FIND IT AMUSING THAT HE CLAIMS TO BE HALVING THE DEFICIT an that anyone buys it. It's a shell game. Ever been to Times Square?
Ms Rand's athiesm is interesting to me because she advocates a method of living that is almost wholly Godly. Her only failure is the discussion of Charity in the life of humans. She forcefully defends the objectivist idea of living for onesself excusively, but forgets (or ignores) the value that charity brings to soul.
Ms Rand's athiesm is interesting to me because she advocates a method of living that is almost wholly Godly. Her only failure is the discussion of Charity in the life of humans. She forcefully defends the objectivist idea of living for onesself excusively, but forgets (or ignores) the value that charity brings to soul.
I think it's so popular because the public is looking for someone who can articulate these themes. The Republicans certainly can't.
thanks for the heads up- we will check it out… as practicing Christians we have absolutely no quibble with Objectivism, quite contrary, she has performed a wonderful service for Western thought and should be considered in the same class as Burke, Aquinas and More. To our knowledge no one else has deconstructed
any other religious concept to the level of pure logic… surely not Mohammedan…
Any Rand needed an editor. That Galt speech went on for 12 pages in the book I read, yet she insisted that the entire thing go in a movie. I believe Al Ruddy had the rights at a time he was making movie after movie, but no, that whole speech had to go in the movie. So it never got made. The Fountainhead with Cooper and Patricia Neal (never more beautiful onscreen) was a great statement about political correctness before anyone hardly thought of it. Still, giving Ms. Rand's sensibilities, I'm shocked it ever got made.
I remember that my oldest brother had this for a book report, or he was terribly bored, in high school. I thought the title was funny. Now that I'm older and have paid more attention to things, I'm wanting to read it. From what I've heard about it, it does seem to parallel our situation that has been growing over the past 16 years or so. Lots of people who believe they are owed a living at the expense of others. Just seems like a foreign concept to me.
I remember that my oldest brother had this for a book report, or he was terribly bored, in high school. I thought the title was funny. Now that I'm older and have paid more attention to things, I'm wanting to read it. From what I've heard about it, it does seem to parallel our situation that has been growing over the past 16 years or so. Lots of people who believe they are owed a living at the expense of others. Just seems like a foreign concept to me.
I've never read it, but I intend to.
I've never read it, but I intend to.
You know if Hollywood did a version of this, they'd turn the Looters into Republican characters faster than some screenwriter hack could turn Taggart into a thinly veiled reference to Halliburton.
She was a prophet, and a sad one as well… if Card Check is passed you will see this done on a wholesale level.
Sorry about your town. Union goons begone!
Nah, like nearly every celebrity, she'd be an Obama fan. LOL.
Nah, like nearly every celebrity, she'd be an Obama fan. LOL.
the Stoic philosophers were not so much atheists as pagans- and it is indeed interesting how Aristotle was able to find pure logic in that environment…
Todd, you'll be shocked how much it parallels events today. You will see all your favorite democrats, taking the same actions the bad guys take, using the same justifications the bad guys use, getting the same horrible results, and responding in the exact same manner. In many ways, Rand provided a textbook for how to hide yourself among a herd liberal.
Skip, I've never seen the movie. I LOVED the book and I didn't want my image of it ruined by a movie adaptation. I take it you recommend the movie?
Exactly dcase.
I've heard that Wal-Mart has done this too. If their employees organize, they close the store.
When I first heard about Atlas Shrugged I hadn't even heard of her. It must have been at the very beginning of the rumblings on the web about the book. As I looked into the book and Rand, I ran into the smears of her and her philosophy. Things like "the book was commissioned by the Illuminati", or "written by Satan himself" all kinds of BS. I'm still reading it and a few days ago in the book they had just passed an act or directive. I put the book down and turned on the news. They were talking about something congress has been up to or just passed, arguing about it or whatever. It as if I was still reading the book, the arguments for the measure and the measure itself took the exact same tone as the book. It was really creepy. It seems I'm reading this thing at a pace that matches world events, like something out of The Twilight Zone. The more I read it the more it seems to get traction and pop up everywhere. I've never read anything like it and I've noticed a change in the way I deal with people since I started it, standing up for myself more and getting more proactive. It's all very strange.
Atlas Shrugged in the context to today’s America are truly prophetic. Really a must read for any freedom loving American. It’s a tuff read until you get into the characters then it moves along nicely. I would love to see the movie made the last I heard they had Angelina Jolie as Dagney Taggart, Brad Pitt, as John Galt, and Russell Crowe as Hank Rearden, is this true or is it internet chatter?
I think intense debate was broken earlier. It seems buggy lately, anyone else experiencing slow, muddy text input?
the charity issue is her most interesting deficiency, in her pure logic charity was not compatible with selfish self interest… yet she freely embraces brotherhood when it is in your interest; at the end of the day helping your neighbor build his barn will be rewarded by his helping fix your car- still noble deeds yet in synch with Objectivism. One supposes that charity is an individual choice and should be done only when necessary- 'tis better to teach a man to fish, as they say…
She had nothing against charity, as long as it was voluntary and not forced on you. I've seen many interviews with her and she has been consistent when it comes to charity. If giving voluntarily makes you feel good (which some would consider selfish because you are doing it for yourself), then go for it.
Well she did see first hand the result of communism she new what she spoke about.
Andy, we recommend the film. Highly. A side note: the morning of the inauguration of the teleprompter in chief
TCM had it on, so we took advantage of turning the channel and were rewarded with 2 hours of anti-Obamunism…
Yeah, there would have to control or liberal Hollywood would screw it up.
I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" all the way through since college. But the message stuck with me, sometimes consciously, and sometimes beneath the surface when I was trying to make a point. I thought "The Fountainhead" was a very fine movie, and I hope Hollywood can do as well with "Atlas Shrugged." Just a fun sidenote, about the time I was graduating from UC, the collectivists had a little saying: "Ronald Reagan is Ayn Rand in drag." They thought it was an insult. He knew better.
I goofed, my friends. It's Wesley Mouch, not Stanley. Thanks Bosch.
I'll give it a chance. I've rarely found that truly good books adapt well to the screen, especially books like the Fountainhead, which are more about belief and depth of character than action sequences.
I’m jealous you got to have Reagan as a Governor and President.
I have no hopes that modern Hollywood can do Atlas Shrugged. The villains will be bankers and hedgefunds. I'd bet money on it.
Of all the looters in the novel, no one knew exactly what their policies would do except the union boss (whose name I can't recall), and he knew what a bunch of dolts the looters were.
I read the novel three or four years ago not knowing exactly what it was about, but knowing it was an influential work, and as I was reading it, I was thinking these looters were exactly what the left represented, and John and Dagny, et al., were what the right represented. And over the passed years, I saw this wonderful country head more and more toward the People's State.
No wonder this book was voted second most influential book right behind the Bible.
Actually… I commented on another recent article (the writer of Rock-n-Roll High School, who got black-listed out of Hollywood). I went back two hours later, and I can't find my comment.
And, I didn't use any profanity or anything… honest!
(Maybe they couldn't believe there were any conservatives in Madison, Wisconsin. Seemed too suspicious?)
The big question is how he will half the deficit, over our dead bodies perhaps, taxes, taxes, taxes…
Here is a great link of Ayn Rand's "Textbook of Americanism". I've read a lot of her work and seen interviews with her and am always astounded at how much love she had for America. She was so terrified that we would go down the same road as the USSR. I once saw an interview she did with Phil Donahue where she said Atlas Shrugged was not a prediction of America's future but rather a reliving of the Soviet Union's past with America in it's place. It was written as a warning that we, the silent majority, chose not to heed.
http://www.enterpriseintegrators.com/flint/4thR/T...
I haven't read Atlas yet (but will) – There is the current news story about FedEx threatening to cancel lucrative aircraft orders to Boeing if the Card Check legislation goes through Congress successfully and gets signed.
I bet there are a number of companies that are on the edge right now that would completely fold if they had to pay the "livable" union wage. Everyone agrees it would be nice to pay everyone $25+ per hour for any kind of job. The reality is, we are in a global economy – competing with many other non-union countries. We just could not compete if most US companies were union. This is the fundamental point socialist just DO NOT GET. It is so true that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Sadly, that's easy Stan. First, he spends twice as much as we already do. Then he cuts back to where we are today. He will then tell us how much he cut spending. That's the current plan, though his budget projections don't make the cut back until 2013.
This populism thing is beginning to make me very nervous. Both sides of the political aisle in Congress were falling all over themselves trying to out-populist each other over the AIG mess. Populism is simply class envy socialism for the feeble-minded. For that reason, it probably has more traction on the left than on the right, but I saw a lot of purple-faced Republicans ready to suspend the Constitution in order to punish those rich evildoers who got the outrageous bonuses. It's that kind of demagogic hysterics that feed populism, socialism, and all-around bad government. Bush had trouble finding his veto pen, and Obama doesn't even own one. I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings, and I think Rand belongs in the ranks of the great prophets.
One last neat tid bit is this amazing article she wrote while with the MPA after the HUAC testimonies. It was meant to guide writers to uphold American ideals in film and to recognize Communist propaganda. If this doesn't give you a cold chill check your pulse. This should be linked off the home page of this site from here to eternity.
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/AmRad/screenguidea...
[...] Why ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Matters [...]
I liked the movie. It's pretty faithful to the novel, albeit truncated (but what do you expect, given the size of Rand's novel). The movie certainly upheld the integrity idea and Cooper portrayed it perfectly. Patricia Neal played her petulant princess perfectly, maybe more so than Rand was comfortable with frankly (Rand had her personal problems). But Rand wrote the script so she had no one to blame.
At one point, I was friends with Michael Edwards, a successful model and soap star who was living with Priscilla Presley. He tried to get me involved with a real estate investment in West Virginia on a river island where he'd loved going to summer camp as a kid. I pitched the idea to them of remaking The Fountainhead as a miniseries, getting a developer involved, and actually build some of the homes designed by "Howard Roark" in the novel. I wanted to tell more story than the movie told. I think if anyone makes a movie about Atlas Shrugged, no one could make most of the fans of the book happy.
And get current Hollywood to make Atlas Shrugged? That's the best joke I've heard this year.
My sister works at Starbucks in a grocery store. She's paid by the store. Until recently she would take her breaks in the cafe there. A few days her boss told her that she had to take them in the break room because the unions were going to start soliciting. they tried a few times but it got voted down, looks like they are getting ready to pounce.
it's excruciatingly bad writing though, any way you cut it. great political philosophy. horrible novel.
The irony for me is that I was one of the students whom Governor Reagan was referring to when he said "Well, if they want a bloodbath, let's give them a bloodbath." Even as a mindless radical at the time, I couldn't help but admire Reagan's ability to cut to the chase. By the time he ran for President, I had morphed into a Reagan Democrat, and his "evil empire" speech clinched it for me. If only there were some Republican today with his simple (not simplistic) messages, clear thinking, immense charisma, and complete lack of concern for what the liberals, radicals and Europeans thought and said about him.
Yeah, Andrew. But where are you going to get the money for the bet? We're all broke.
Absolutely. Populism is basically another word for vilification. It advocates torturing those we do not like as a way to make ourselves feel better. That's wrong on so many levels. Unfortunately, it's also very easy for politicians (left and right) to slip into it because it is an easy way to "fire up" the base.
I'm afraid of the exact same thing. It most likely won't even resemble what was written.
One thing that Washington politicians love is being a Washington politician, and power. Our “servants” are off their leashes and it truly is unnerving. Huey Long would be so proud?
I read The Fountainhead because how many books have an architect as protagonist? (I'm an architect) And I didn't see the film until just recently. And I loved it. My small quibble is this, Cooper does a great job as Roarke (as expected), but he just didn't look young enough early in the pic. But yes, Neal was exquisite, and Raymond Massey was excellent too. I never thought of Abe Lincoln once! And they did a great job protraying visually the conflicting ideas about what architecture should be.
I agree about current Hollywood and Atlas Shrugged. They won't be able to resist making the bad guys into bankers, hedgefunds, and corrupt Republicans. Also, they will never understand the reasoning behind the story itself. I expect to see some jumble about lobbyist created legislation (bad) v. pure, well-intentioned, socialist legislation (good).
I'm a fan of cool architecture and I would love to see someone make Roark homes. Talk about a tourist attraction! Colorado should build a Galt City.
Thanks for the info on the Fountainhead movie. One of the problems I have with remakes of great books like this, is that they always want to interpret the book — and they rarely get it right. It's like they understand the style, but never the substance.
I can't argue with that but like most of what are our most influential books it was less about the style of the writing and more about it's substance.
Ayn Rand likes to ignore a few subtle truths in her works. Most of the truly productive people who make great advances in science, medicine, industry are not at the top of the food chain, for every Dean Kamen out there, there are 1000 people who see little profit to their ideas which make companies millions, Scientific advance requires capitol, of which most individuals don't have large enough amounts to do their research. Ayn Rand apeals to people who think they are the prolific producers (Which obviously most are not). Does society give bill gates a raw deal? What would really happen if Warren Buffet decided to stop working…….Somone else would step in, and that person might now be quite as good, or they might be better. The idea behind Ayn Rands work is being a selfish bastard is ok, becuase other people will have to let you be or society will fall apart, and those people care too much too let society fall apart, so screw them. Obviously not a philosophy you would want your neighbors living buy, we live in communities, and there are communal responsibilities, as much as people would like to think they do everything on their own they don't this world has gotten to complicated for Ayn Rand to apply in any way but as a reminder of how selfish people can justify their own selfishness.
I read recently that Jolie and Pitt lost interest. Anyway, the novel could not possibly be represented by a standard Hollywood film. A 10 or 20 part series would be needed.
I read some of Rand's straight philosophy books years ago and it did transform my thinking and no doubt accelerated my political views. Once you see the negative effects of altruism ( and the fraudulent nature of most of the underlying philosophy) you are on "the other side" forever. For most liberals, altruism is their GOD, which is why Rand is anathema to them.
Atlas Shrugged, I got for my i-pod – 50 hours of audio unabridged, and it is timely. Ayn Rand is brilliant but not a prophet; Rand lived under communism and understood it completely, and there is only one direction things go once altruism and "looters" get control.
I'm waiting to get my "fair share" from the government. When I say "money" I really mean "Obamastamps".
Ya know, a voice from heaven just spoke to me and pointed out that Ronald Reagan was the first great politician to come up with the concept "Don't feed the trolls." He simply ignored them, they continued to sputter for awhile, then died of starvation. Unfortunately, they left offspring who are feeding off the words of reasonable people who can't resist feeding them today.
Taxes are in this man’s DNA. He believes that the tax code is the great equalizer. You are right this creep is a great believer in slight of hand, or bait and switch, if you will. As a business owner I am concerned.
Oh, give me a break.
She took selective chunks from Neitzche, dumped in a bit of good old fashioned classism, added a touch of economic ignorance (The Gault's of the world work for "Wal-martish" CEO's who had only one idea in their lives. Cheaper wages.) and tossed in a solid "I got mine, screw you".
Intellectual giant by aching posterior.
Oh, give me a break.
She took selective chunks from Neitzche, dumped in a bit of good old fashioned classism, added a touch of economic ignorance (The Gault's of the world work for "Wal-martish" CEO's who had only one idea in their lives. Cheaper wages.) and tossed in a solid "I got mine, screw you".
Intellectual giant by aching posterior.
Well, Ann Coulter, God bless her beautiful heart, posted the goods on Wall Street, "Gordon Gekko Is A Democrat," http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=13869... not that anyone in Hollywood would read it. Substance? The only thing that Hollywood does with substance is abuse it.
I wanted to read it — there wasn't a single word in it I disagreed with — but I gave up about two-thirds of the way through. Sold it to a used bookstore and bought gas for my car.
I’d forgotten that. For such a soft spoken man he could be tough. I guess that comes from a person that has the courage of his convictions.
I can hear The Kingfish chortling in his grave (and I'm three thousand miles away).
Skip, I always love reading your comments/contributions because I love your word play: "The only thing that Hollywood does with substance is abuse it." Fantastic!
I started reading Rand when I was a teenager, and loved her novels. Still do. In matters of personal honor and integrity, I often think, what would Howard Roark do?
However, my interest in Objectivism ended a few years ago, because of the endless attacks on religion by the ARI and TIA. I wasn't religious at the time, but still found the attacks tiresome. I was also disturbed by the increasingly bitter tone of many of the articles and by what seemed like a tacit defense of hedonism (which Rand did not promote as a virtue). The final straw was an article defending partial-birth abortion as pro-freedom. Even as an agnostic, I found this a perversion of the notion of freedom. I cancelled my financial support for TIA, and was done with Objectivism. They were wasting an enormous amount of energy that would've been more effectively directed elsewhere.
I would caution Objectivists to nix the anti-religious crusade if they haven't already. I'm heartened that sales of Rand's novels are at an all-time high, but America is still largely a Christian nation. To persist with the attacks against religion would be to waste an opportunity that may never come again.
Amen. I found the writing in this book to be the most simplistic, boring, rote and repetitive style of any major book I've read. Even the names of the characters were outstandingly bad. Balph? There was a guy named Balph in it! No problem with the themes expressed or objectivism in general, but her skills as a novelist were lacking.
http://www.alistz.net
Howard Roarke's ideas about architecture are loosely drawn from the ideas of Frank Lloyd Wright. During the time Rand was researching "Fountainhead", Wright had just returned from an extended stay in Europe where he ran off to with his mistress after abandoning his first wife and 6 kids. He returned to the US virtually broke and companionless. So he drifted up and down the California coast, attending various social events and looking for commisions. It was during this period that he met Rand and struck up a friendship. And Rand took many of his ideas about architecutral theory and architecture (FLW wrote extensively on both) and built the architect portion of Roarke around them. If you want to see what "Roarke-ian" architecture would look like, just check out the works of FLW.
Amen
The Galt speech was actually 20 pages in a size 6 font, very long indeed. Strangely Atlas never got close to being on the screen the incident I believe you are referring to is from the Fountain Head with Gary Cooper's finale speech. They tried several times to get her to trim it (I believe it ran about 8 minutes) and she threatened to pull her name from the project and publicly rebuke the film if they changes so much as one syllable. The studio relented and the movie closed exactly as she had written it. Gutsy on her part compared to today's integrity starved, take the money and run writers.
That would work on websites (and I promise I will do my best to resist the temptation), but I wouldn't try that in the public policy sphere. Silence equals consent in the world of politics.
This book changed my life and, along with the Book of Revelation, is the blueprint for our future.
Ayn Rand was able to "prophesy" what is happening today because the path to socialism always takes the same path. Sadly, we are way into the final chapters now.
It's a hard read no doubt. It is the longest book written in any western language and considered by most to be it's most difficult read but I tell you it was well worth it. It's rare that something can really reset your perspective the way that book does.
My girlfriend who speaks English as a third language has read it twice and plans on reading it a third time. She absolutely loves that book and has read now most of Rand's popular works and several of her papers. She says it sinks up beautifully with her Budhist upbringing of personal accountability.
Frank Lloyd Wright and Ayn Rand doing the wild thing! LMAO. Good thing they didn't get married; he would have become Frank Rand. Crazy, I always thought the architecture she wrote about sounded like Wright. Thanks for the info, Dom.
I just finished "Atlas Shrugged" and was captivated by the story and the writing style. I was considering reading "The Fountainhead", can anyone offer a short review of that book? Thanks.
Excuse my ignorance for not having read "Atlas," it is now cannot-do-without reading for me. However, the entrepreneurs you describe from the book actually do create something, which is something the current titans of Wall Street by and large do not do. They create money, and eliminate jobs and create nothing more in the process. Nothing. The best advice anyone could take is to not take any advice from Wall Street analysts, and if possible don't go public unless what you really want to do is eventually cash out. Wall Street preaches expansion, consolidation, absorbing "weaker" competitors, "efficiency" and "growth." They focus on increasing share price (Orwellianly described as "value") with any eye toward eventual sale/cashing out. Then they counsel spinning off divisions (whether they are profitable or not doesn't seem to matter) and refocusing on core businesses. Then they start pushing consolidation again. All in the name of making money but this is NOT genuinely entrepreneurial at all. It's gambling with people's livelihoods and retirement.
wow, you cant even spell "Galt" right.
that was an original reason for me not picking up the book. However, having completed it last month, I can say without a doubt that it was frighteningly familiar. I would HIGHLY recommend it to anyone thinking of reading it.
Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to prevent itself from coming true. In real life, individuals "going Galt" is not an effective 'solution' to approaching dictatorship, but a piecemeal *reaction* to the increasing punishment of producers. Ayn Rand saw instances of this reaction in her lifetime, which is part of what gave her the idea for the book.
In Atlas Shrugged the strike is not a mere reaction. It is part of a radical long-term plan by a genius. But for a reader, the strike's function is not as an instruction manual. It is a *literary device* to dramatically demonstrate why it is suicidal for a nation to shackle and scapegoat its producers.
Unfortunately, too few people have yet digested the message of Atlas Shrugged, which is much deeper than politics and economics. We are now close to the scenario in AS precisely because its most critical message is ethical, and we are (apparently) slow (hopefully not too slow) to reject the ancient morality of altruism, and to learn a new ethics of rational egoism.
Howard Roark's speech in The Fountainhead goes on for 12 pages. John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged went on for more than 60 (it can be found in the chapter "This is John Galt Speaking" in Part III. I skimmed the comments but didn't see the correction, but Gary Cooper starred in the film version of "The Fountainhead;" Atlas has never been made into a movie.
[...] Why Atlas Shrugged Matters Share and Enjoy: [...]
Check out YouTube for the the entire Ayn Rand appearance on Phil Donahue's show back in the late 70's. It's a hoot watching Donahue and his audience trying (in vain) to get Ayn to abandon reason with appeals to her compassion. It reminded me a lot of Hank Rearden's family in Atlas Shrugged.
I wasn't suggesting silence. I was suggesting we be vocal in the Reagan mode. Don't argue with people who are working from scripts, Cliff notes, and teleprompters. Come up with good ideas. Ignore their agenda, and set your own. Speak boldly and proudly of your plans and concepts. Identify the enemy and attack him, not his disciples.
Ronald Reagan's most devastating responses to the opposition usually began with "Well, there you go again." Then he would ignore the nonsense that just sprewed out of the other guy's mouth, and go on with his own presentation. If you don't like the question, ignore it and answer your own question instead. The milestone "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was said against the advice of all his writers. And "Mr. Moderator, I paid for this microphone" wasn't half-bad either. Ronald Reagan was rarely silent, and he only consented to ideas he had usually laid out in the first place.
Oh, I forgot. Your mother wears army boots.
Sorry if I got the numbers wrong. When I think about reading those speeches, my eyes blur over.
I see where you're going and yes she endorses selfishness but you are over simplifying and adding a lot of gray. Ayn Rand believed as Thomas Jefferson did that people should be free to pursue happiness without the shackles of tyranny and that we are all born with an inalienable right to express our free will.
This idea of communal responsibility, as you expressed it, is a red herring. The only true way to enforce responsibility is law and regulation so at it's core responsibility not backed by law is a personal choice. Using the example of a neighbor's home burning you may (as most of us would) view it as your responsibility to try and help but you would not be punished if you didn't, that is free will. Ayn Rand never opposed helping others, she dedicated her life to trying to help others see the dangers of Communism she witnessed first hand but it was her choice. In the Randian philosophy charity is given of free will and out of a sincere desire to help not out of some contrived sense of having to serve others or out of force.
Continued..
Using your mention of producers not being wealthy, that is true but wealth is not the point. If you are doing what you love, what you "selfishly" want to do then money will not matter. People who are giving their lives to medicine and science as you mentioned by in large are doing it because they want to help not because they want to be millionaires, these people are as much victims of looters and moochers as Galt was. Do others profit from these workers efforts? Of course. This is how a market is built, mutual consent of free will. Without the large company the scientist would never have the financial means to do the work they have dedicated themself to and without the scientist the large company would never have the innovation to profit from. You are viewing the workers as endentured servants rather than willing participants in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
One thing to ask yourself regarding moochers and looters. Look at how much money the government is taking from you and ask yourself what have you gotten in return and what have they done to earn it? We have gotten to comfortable with being forced to sacrifice our labor and hard earned rewards for nothing.
The populism thing definitely has me scared. Half our household income comes from big corporation. We could wind up on the wrong end of that anger.
I suppose if Superhero stories can pass as serious film, then Ayn Rand must be serious literature. It certainly reads like a comic book. Or as William F. Buckley said, it's "a thousand pages of ideological fabulism." Whittaker Chambers destroys the book here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback...
We need someone like Daniel Hannan.
Speaking of Chambers, if you want to read a 1,000 page book by a coservative that can actually WRITE, you might try his masterpiece of am auto-biography, 'Witness'.
I think I've heard that about FedEx as well.
Capitalism in the fifties was more stark than today, and corporations were not multi-national and as government-dependent as they are today, so in a sense you are right that Rand's innovators are not as applicable today. But Buffet would be considered more of a looter by Rand, I think, while Gates is indeed an innovator (though not a pristine character by any means). Besides Gates, who is an extreme, millions of people gain profits from their work in America – especially those who actively pursue a dream and have talent.
You misunderstand Rand if you think she promotes selfishness as a vice. She promotes it as a virtue – that in the end when you help yourself, when you improve yourself, when you are strict with yourself, you contribute to society as a natural outcome, because we do live in communities and trade with each other. Rand never celebrated independence per se, the idea is achieving something that ultimately contributes to society (otherwise it would not be celebrated as a success, right?) It IS a philosophy I want my neighbors to live by. Paint your house take care of your yard (and don't go into foreclosure) and don't be looking out your window trying to figure out how to "help" me. When you focus on helping, or improving others, you do them and yourself a disservice.
Capitalism in the fifties was more stark than today, and corporations were not multi-national and as government-dependent as they are today, so in a sense you are right that Rand's innovators are not as applicable today. But Buffet would be considered more of a looter by Rand, I think, while Gates is indeed an innovator (though not a pristine character by any means). Besides Gates, who is an extreme, millions of people gain profits from their work in America – especially those who actively pursue a dream and have talent.
You misunderstand Rand if you think she promotes selfishness as a vice. She promotes it as a virtue – that in the end when you help yourself, when you improve yourself, when you are strict with yourself, you contribute to society as a natural outcome, because we do live in communities and trade with each other. Rand never celebrated independence per se, the idea is achieving something that ultimately contributes to society (otherwise it would not be celebrated as a success, right?) It IS a philosophy I want my neighbors to live by. Paint your house take care of your yard (and don't go into foreclosure) and don't be looking out your window trying to figure out how to "help" me. When you focus on helping, or improving others, you do them and yourself a disservice.
Also, you overlook the fact that even if the people who make the advances are not at the top, the people ta the top could not stay at the top without the willing work of the productive people. In other words, if those at the top do not recognize and reward the efforts of those making the advances in a manner that is satisfactory to those individuals, they could not stay at the top.
The people making the advances may not be able to develop their ideas without capital, but they are not compelled to enter into any relationship with the person who has capital that they find onerous or aginst their own self-interests. In other words, the relationship is symbiotic, not parasitic as you imply.
Very good point — not the army boot thing, the seizing the agenda.
As any good lawyer (or politician) knows, you cannot let the other side set the terms of the debate. If you let the other guy frame the issues and you react defensively, you've lost before you ever start speaking.
Infuriatingly, Republicans don't get this. When they do the talk show circuit on Sundays, they walk right into verbal traps, they let the other guy define the terms of the debate and the Republican position, and they strangely give credit where no credit is due and heap praise upon their opponents. They are utterly defeated before they open their mouths. I sometimes wonder if Anderson Cooper stood up and urinated on Lind. Graham, would Graham thank him first or would he just launched straight into why the Republicans are wrong?
Republicans need to learn to dismiss the garbage and present the things they believe. Sadly, that takes both courage, good public speaking skills, and knowledge of your own positions — none of which are in good supply in the party right now.
As a novelist who also likes movies, I have to disagree that adapting one's novel to a movie is evidence of being "integrity starved." On the contrary, I think it proves that you're not a good writer if you cannot adapt your message to fit the medium. Novelists who want to see their movies on the Big Screen need to realize that movies aren't novels any more than novels are short stories or poems. I'm certain Rand could have cut 95% of the speech without destroying her "integrity." And, as has already been mentioned, a good editor would have cut 95% of it from the book in the first place. Just because a writer loves his/her words doesn't make them (the words) hallowed.
Amen to that.
Good lawyers? There you go again with those oxymorons.
I have a great idea. Why don't we just form the Church of Ronald Reagan? You give the sermon one Sunday, I'll do it the next, and we'll alternate. My first sermon will be "Kicking Him in the Other Cheek." And then a reading from the Gospel of Saint Ronald's Letter to the Philistines: "Put not your faith in liberals, who go forth saying lies and calling it truth. Instead, go forth yourselves and speak the truth, and keep speaking it until the damned fools wake up."
And I was just being mean. I know your mother wears Prada.
They wanted Wright to contribute some visual designs for Roark's creations in the film version of Fountainhead, but he wasn't happy with the piddly commission they offered, so he said no.
Wright was on the fence between "genius" and "raving-monster looney", but you can see why Rand admired him — he was a man who did exactly what he wanted to do.
Wal-martis? Pray tell, have you ever worked at Wal-Mart? I have. $9 an hour to push carts, compared to 6 an hour minus union dues at Kroger or Meijer. Add on employee discount, profit share, health benefits, bonus, etc, and its a damn sight better then other stores that have similar job opportunities. If I were to lose my current job I'd go back to Wal-Mart in a heart beat while I looked for something else that pays what I make now. Seriously, your lack of knowledge about wal-mart's pay rates shows that you don't speak from anything other then your scripting talking points.
Charity that is compulsory is no longer charity.
When I worked at wally world it wasn't a big issue, non of us were stupid enough to want to take the pay cut that would come with unionizing, especially since we already had more benefits then non-unionizd stores.
When I worked at wally world it wasn't a big issue, non of us were stupid enough to want to take the pay cut that would come with unionizing, especially since we already had more benefits then non-unionizd stores.
I go in and out of flirtation with outright Objectivism, and I'm a fan of the book warts-and-all… and let's be real about this: The woman could write and had a fascinating outlook, but most of the fiction and Atlas especially borders on high-camp between all the quasi-Shakespearean bloviating and the character names that all sound like secret identities for future X-Men… but I damn near garauntee you most of the folks suddenly buying it now don't know what they're in for and won't even finish it.
SPOILER WARNING
Hell, most modern "conservatives" will end up hating it right around the time the adultery subplot starts informing you that it doesn't plan on condemning the participants – instead, Rearden's big "self-realization" moment winds up being that the only thing he did wrong was to try and "protect" Dagny's honor, since they weren't doing anything "wrong" and shouldn't have been "ashamed" since they as Individualists were only breaking the "rules" set up by a society of those too weak to live by their own terms and rules. (continued)
(continued)
Now ME? I dig the hell outta that. And it's those facets of Objectivism (anti-spiritualism and/or an "elitism of the self-sufficient" if you like) that you can probably thank for the books "surprising" popularity among a certain generation of otherwise "liberal" artistic-types like Jolie. But do you really think most of, say, Hannity's audience does?
Please no movie. I would hate to see what Hollywood did this with this book. The script writers would turn it into some sort of pro-socialsm work and make Galt out to be a terrrible bad guy who took away all the jobs.
I never actually read about anything other than a platonic relationship, and while in school my arch. history prof. spoke about FLW's relationship w/ AR but again didn't even imply any gettin' jiggy between the two. Besides it seems from his relationship with his other wife Oligvana, he really just wanted an in-house applause machine, not a equal partner. In FLW's mind he had no equal.
“Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”
I always thought Rand was unfair to poor old Robin Hood. He didn't steal from producers and give to non-producers. King John (not a producer) was taxing his subjects (the producers) into poverty and Robin Hood simply stole back the money that rightfully belonged to them.
Oh please. I would be surprised if Jolie can even read.
Jake, it is pretty safe to say he was a genius when it came to design. But he was a greedy, ego-driven, horrible little man as a person. And he didn't always get to do whatever he wanted to do. Part of his "genius" was his ability to persuade his clients towards his ideas and against their own. But he didn't always get away with it. Example: S.C. Johnson (Johnson Wax, etc.) comissioned FLW to do the corp. hdqtr. in Racine Wisc. A beautiful building. FLW also designed much of the office furnishings, including swiveling desk chairs that had a three point rolling base. Sitting upright in the chairs was not a problem until one leaned sideways, or back to reach for something. Then one fell over. S.C. Johnson called FLW and explained the problem, and FLW went into this long explaination about how the design was so forward looking and avante-garde, and how the people just needed to learn how to balance. Johnson just cut him off and said "Frank, the chairs fall over. Fix the g**da*n chairs." And he sheepishly designed a chair with a four point base. That's just one.
Lucy! Ellen! My two beautiful jewels! I love you very much, and I miss you too! Do what Mommy says, and say your prayers. Love, Daddy
Sure Ayn Rand is a brilliant thinker, but she's no L Ron Hubbard
Ayn Rand grew up in Russia. Any thoughts on this source as her atheism?
My dad gave me Atlas Shrugged for my 12th birthday. 35 years later, I have read it cover to cover at least 10 times, and picked it up for a quick perusal at least 100 times. I keep a copy in my car in case I'm bored or just waiting in a carpool line. My father also used to keep a box in the trunk of his car, and scour used book stores where he'd pick up old paperback AS for 25 cents and hand them out to people, saying "This book will change your life."
Who knows how many peoples' lives it did change? I don't know whether to be sad or grateful that he's no longer here to witness our current state of events.
Rand was quite a visionary. And Mr Baron is very astute, pointing out how applicable Rand's nightmare scenario is today. I've been saying to my brother (who recommended the book to me) since the first clinton administration, that Atlas Shrugged is coming true. Back in the nineties…he laughed. Now he gets that concerned look instead. You know, that look people get when they know you're right but just can't admit it aloud, to themselves or anyone else.
oneshot has had his one shot. Liberals' heads just aren't screwed on correctly to begin to grasp Atlas or Ayn.
1. So it comes down to Justice vs. Mercy. I want Justice from my govt. Mercy is something God wants from us as individuals. Affirmative Action is immoral because according to it someone's "need" supercedes another's abilities.
2. The book is incredibly tedious and repetitive. I loved D'Anconia's speech about the immorality of Robin Hood. (How evil it is to be generous with Other People's Money (OPM)) A 150 page booklet espousing thing ideas would have been easier to digest.
3. The characters are all one-dimensional.
4. Oranges grown in a Rocky Mountain valley? BS.
5. If all the productive Americans go on strike, I am sure 2 billion Indians and Chinese will be happy to fill the vacuum.
Bottom Line: Great ideas. Crappy package.
When I said "good" I meant capable, not "good" as in non-evil. There are no non-evil lawyers.
That's a great idea — the Church of Ronald Reagan! I can't wait to hear the sermon "Kicking Him In The Other Cheek." LOL!! Who knows, we might get more converts than the Republican Party in Washington right now? But even if we don't, we can still claim tax free status. Sounds like a win-win for the lawyers!
I didn't know Prada made combat boots?
Ayn Rand was not the world's greatest novelist. She admitted as much in revealing that her favorite novelist was Victor Hugo, about whom she wrote in her introduction to her "Romantic Manifesto." The two enormously successful writers were complementary in that, whereas Rand possessed the more knowledgeable philosophy, Hugo possessed the far greater writing skill. Understanding either's strengths and weaknesses is less important than understanding that they were perfect spiritual allies, i.e., akin as to their "sense of life." The following Hugo passage—posted in a series because of space constraints—is an example of how ideas expressed in a different historical context nevertheless ring true in our own time:
A Storm Always Knows What It’s Doing
(The following excerpt is from Victor Hugo’s “Ninety-Three,” the great Romanticist’s (“Les Miserables,” “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”) last novel, published in 1874, nearly a century after the French Revolution, which served as the background for the book.
It is not, strictly speaking, a historical novel, one that attempts to take the reader back into a moment in history. Rather, Hugo uses that specific conflagration to develop characters and a plot in the interest of a universal theme, one that applies not only to the French Revolution but to subsequent wars.
The excerpt is a conversation between two leaders. Although Cimourdain, an ex-priest, and Gauvain, whom he had tutored, both fought to overthrow the monarchy and establish a republic, their visions for that republic were vastly different. Their discussion represents two different aspects of the revolutionary spirit and echoes themes heard in modern political debate.)
During that supper, Gauvain ate and Cimourdain drank, a sign of calm in the former and of agitation in the latter.
There was a kind of terrible serenity in the cell. The two men talked.
“Great things are beginning to take shape,” said Gauvain. “What the Revolution is doing now is mysterious. Behind the visible work there’s the invisible work. The visible work is fierce, the invisible work is sublime. I can see everything very clearly now. It’s strange and beautiful. It has been necessary to use the materials of the past. Hence this extraordinary ’93. Beneath a scaffolding of barbarism, a temple of civilization is being built.”
“Yes,” replied Cimourdain, “from this provisional situation will come the definitive one. By the definitive one I mean parallel rights and duties, proportional and progressive taxes, obligatory military service, a leveling process without deviations, and above everyone and everything, that straight line, the law. The republic of the absolute.”
“I prefer the republic of the ideal,” said Gauvain. He paused, then continued: “O my master, in everything you’ve just said, where do you place devotion, self-sacrifice, abnegation, the magnanimous interlacing of benevolences, love? To put everything in balance is good, to put everything in harmony is better. Above the scales there’s the lyre. Your republic weighs, measures and regulates man; mine sweeps him up into the blue sky; it’s the difference between a theorem and an angel.”
“You’ve become lost in the clouds.”
“And you in calculations.”
“There’s a certain amount of dreaming in harmony.”
“And also in algebra.”
“I wish man had been made by Euclid.”
“And I’d like him better if he’d been made by Homer,” said Gauvain.
Cimourdain’s stern smile came to rest on Gauvain, as though to hold his soul fast.
“Poetry. Beware of poets.”
“Yes, I know the saying. Beware of breezes, beware of sunbeams, beware of fragrances, beware of flowers, beware of the constellations.”
“None of those things can feed anyone.”
“How do you know? Ideas are food too. To think is to eat.”
“No abstractions. The Republic is two and two make four. When I’ve given everyone what’s coming to him…”
“You’ll still have to give everyone what’s not coming to him.”
“What do you mean by that?”
“I’m referring to the immense reciprocal concessions which each owes to all, which all owe to each, and which are the whole of social life.”
“Outside of strict law, there’s nothing.”
“There’s everything.”
“I see only justice.”
“I look higher.”
“What is there above justice?”
“Equity.”
Now and then they stopped, as those gleams were passing by.
Cimourdain resumed:
“I challenge you to be specific.”
“Very well. You want obligatory military service. Against whom? Against other men? I don’t want any military service. I want peace. You want to help the poor, I want to eliminate poverty. You want proportional taxes, I don’t want any taxes at all. I want common expenditures reduced to their simplest expression and paid by the social surplus.”
“What do you mean?”
“This: first eliminate parasitisms—the parasitism of the priest, of the judge, of the soldier. Then make use of your riches. You throw manure into the sewer; throw it into the fields instead. Three-quarters of the land is lying fallow. Cultivate the soil of France, do away with useless pastures, divide the communal lands. Let each man have a piece of land, and let each piece of land have a man. You’ll increase the social product a hundredfold. France now gives her peasants meat only four times a year; well cultivated, she could feed three hundred million people, all of Europe. Utilize nature, that immense neglected helper. Make every wind work for you, every waterfall, every magnetic emanation. The earth has an underground network of veins; in that network there’s a prodigious circulation of water, oil and fire; tap the veins of the earth and bring forth that water for your fountains, that oil for your lamps, that fire for your hearths. Consider the movement of the waves, the ebb and flow of the tides. What is an ocean? An enormous wasted force. How foolish the earth is, not to use the oceans!”
“You’re in the midst of a dream!”
“In other words, in the midst of reality …And woman? What will you do with her?”
Cimourdain answered, “I’ll leave her what she is: man’s servant.”
“Yes, on one condition.”
“What is it?”
“That man also be woman’s servant.”
“Are you serious?” cried Cimourdain. “Man a servant? Never! Man is the master. I acknowledge only one kind of royalty: that of the home. A man is king in his own home.”
“Yes, on one condition.”
“What is it?”
“That woman be queen there.”
“In short, between men and women you want…”
“Equality.”
“Equality! You can’t mean it. Man and woman are two different creatures.”
“I said equality. I didn’t say identity.”…
Gauvain spoke with the composure of a prophet. Cimourdain listened. The roles were reversed; it now seemed that the pupil was now the master. …
Cimourdain looked at the floor of the cell and said, “And in the meantime what do you want?”
“What is.”
“You absolve the present time?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“Because it’s a storm. A storm always knows what it’s doing. For every oak struck by lightning, how many forests are made healthy! Civilization was in the grip of a pestilence and this great wind is curing it. The wind may not be selective enough, but could it do otherwise? It has such hard work to do! Before the horror of the miasma, I understand the fury of the wind. Furthermore, what does the storm mean to me if I have a compass, and what do events matter to me if I have my conscience!
I learned it from Carrie Bradshaw during Sex and the City (on TV, not in San Francisco)
I just bought a new copy for myself, and will be giving it as gifts to everyone I know who voted for Obama, but who should have known better..
If it was San Francisco, it would have been Terry Bradshaw.
There's a little ghost town west of Fort Worth that was Galted too, back in the 1930s. It was a coal mining town with a side industry of brickworks and was owned by Railroad moguls. Was known as a rising city back in the day, but because of the discovery of oil and because of unions, the company shut down and essentially razed the town to the ground. Today, a major interstate hwy runs smack dab through the heart of the city and the only things left to see are a smokestack for the brick kiln, a couple of brick buildings, and remnants of a brick sidewalk that stretches into farmland now. There is a cemetery at the top of the hill that interred up to 1000 people. That town was known as Thurber.
My dad grew up visiting his grandparents there, and has in his possession a couple of company store tickets that were used as vouchers for items sold at the store.
http://www.thurbertexas.com/
One would think that that sort of thing doesnt happen anymore…but I guess socialists keep trying it over and over again like the insane clowns that they are….
Sure wish someone would make a moview about Thurber….
Jolie might be eye candy for some but a Dagney portrayal diserves a little more substance.
This book (and 1984) changed my life. But i could never fully grasp objectivism. It might be because every time i looked in to it i had just finished Atlas and was exhausted.
I take issue with the lack of charity in her writing as well as her lack of love. The sexual relationships in the book are a little too much for me. I think she was consistant with them, they were totally selfish relationships. I think the relationships actually detract from the story.
Take it or leave it.
I agree about 1984. I've been noticing how little memory people have had ala Ministry of Truth for a while now. I remember when I was reading 1984 and read the part about how they would burn all official evidence of having been at war with Oceania (or the other one), and I thought, how silly it was because people could never forget that quickly. Now here we are, and people in today's soundbite reality can barely remember what happened a year ago. Look at all the people who voted to go into Iraq that the public essentially forgot voted to do so.
Huge Fan of Ms. Rand.
FYI, everyone in the publishing industry of her time agreed with the comment "she needed an editor." However, because of the success of The Fountainhead, she refused to work with one. She offered Atlas Shrugged as a "take it as is" or "leave it" submission. No editing allowed.
I kind of like her attitude, but it would have been a better piece of literature with a good editor–
What a grand read it was! I slugged through Atlas Shrugged about 40 yrs. ago, when I was 20 or so, and it was a truly eye-opening adventure. At the time I was a staunch liberal dumocrat, and this wonderful book certainly tore the blinders off for me. It kick-started the slow process of questioning the ultimate worth(less) of the very core concepts of the dumocrat party, which eventually led me to the conclusion that taken to it's ultimate end, the welfare state mentality was a self-defeating and nation-killing agenda. I now read comments on how uncannily timely the storyline is to our present circumstances – exactly what I was thinking in 1969! LBJ had just rammed his Great Society down our throats and chased it with the little debacle in Viet Nam (the dumocrats don't like to talk much about that, or Woodrow Wilson), and even back then I could see the horror beginning to unfold. Eventually I grew up and became an adult, and switched from dumocrat to Republican. I've noticed several comments on the length of the entire work, and some of the speeches therein. Remember, at the time of publication things moved more slowly and reading a great long book was a pleasure. Weren't no tv, xbox or home computers, and people hadn't morphed into instant-gratification wonks with attention spans measured in nano-seconds! Perhaps the problem is not the length of the novel, but instead our current perception of it. Having previously read several of Dostoyevsky's works along with War & Peace, I don't recall Atlas Shrugged being a particular challenge, or overly lengthy, but that was then, as they say, and this is now. READ IT AND ENJOY!
I've read Atlas innumerable times and know other people who read it least once a year. I read it most recently during the election of the Obammunist. Half the shoulders in this country are now contracting for a big shrug. I can also highly recommend the book of essays "The Return of the Primitive" – mostly Rand, a few others.
Ayn tells the stories of living through Communism in her autobiographical We the Living (you think Atlas is a tough read!). I happen to own a house larger than I need (no mansion, just large) and I continually visualize, if we keep on this path, the day looters will be assigned to take over my other rooms while I work to support them.
I loved finding this thread (great site too) and seeing other thinking people reading the book. I also recently re-read 1984, and Animal Farm, and Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here. All resonating hugely. We are in serious trouble…
In the private sector of small package/freight delivery (everybody except USPS) they all share the same problem. The majority of their employees are part-time. These are the people who do the actual sorting of the freight/packages, not the pilots, drivers, cust.serv. or management personell. The "hubs" where the freight is sorted and re-routed for delivery usually have "sorts" that last for approx. 4 hours, then everybody goes home. And as far as part-time jobs go, these are good ones. (Unless you're on the night sort, which goes from around 1 a.m. to around 5 a.m). But they're great for local college students, housewives with open afternoons, or anyone with a few hours open who wants some extra cash. But you've gotta work hard and fast. This is called "time-definite" delivery. When these sorts are over, no freight remains in the building. Except for UPS who sorts 3 times per day. Or did when I was in their engineering dept.
I also own a home considerably larger average (whatever that is), and recently I've been thinking about the scene in "Dr. Zhivago," when Zhivago returned home one day after the revolution and found that the government had assigned most of the family mansion to the rabble, leaving a small portion for him and his family.
Earlier in this thread someone recommended watching the interview of Rand by Donahue from about 1980, which I did. However there was also a three-part one with Mike Wallace from 1959, which I liked much better. For one thing, for some reason her accent wasn't as thick in 1959 as it was about 20 years later during the Donahue interview (?!), and there were no questions from airheaded housewives to distract. I believe you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k&fe...
I think Jolie could pull it off. But my first choice would be Cate Blanchett who can do just about any role. Although why she agree to do the last Indiana Jones movie is mystifying. Like Lord Olivier in Clash of the Titans.
You're an idiot who has probably NEVER even read A book let alone Atlas Shrugged.
Fabulous post. Aim in to dcase. I've been growing increasingly bored with all the "players" in this political theatre. I count myself as one mur among many others. Ayn Rand was downright brilliant.
How about this. Someone…maybe the Ayn Rand institute raise money and give every college Freshman at one major university a copy of Atlas Shrugged every year. Florida one year, USC the next and so on. It would be pretty cheap (50,000 for the books) or so.
Would that be Bisbee Leo?
I worry that he is only a puppet doing and saying what his teleprompter tells him to. He being obama of course.
Dude does bring up some pretty valid points!
RT
http://www.privacy-tools.us.tc
Honestly, enough with this John Galt, Objectivism, Ayn Rand horseshit.
Communism, Objectivism, Socialism, Capitalism… Same Devil, different words.
They are all inherently selfish, they are all flawed, and none of them take human nature into account.
It disgusts me that so many of you "conservatives" are fawning over Ayn Rand. She is just as bad as Marx. She thought that if everyone in a society adhered to an insane economic principle everything would magically get better.
Sure, Ayn grew up under Communism. That sucks. It really really sucks. But you know what else sucked? The Industrial Revolution. Tell me, how did the selfishness that Ayn promoted make people happier, and lead the way to enlightenment? It didn't. Nothing really changed until the scourge of the Earth, government and unions, intervened.
I'm not plugging for Communism, or Socialism, but really, is a pseudo-capitalist economy so bad? It seems to have worked in my eyes.
Workers do not get screwed by immoral bosses, and businesses aren't so centrally planned and strangled that they actually produce something.
I guess what I am trying to say is: Just because it is not collectivism, does not mean that it is good.
Ayn Rand hated Ronald Reagan.
Explain that one.
I suppose she hated dishonesty and couldn't take the phony "black" hair on a 70-year-old.
Or the fact that he chickened out of World War II.
She knew frauds, I'll give her that.
Ayn Rand hated Ronald Reagan.
Explain that one.
I suppose she hated dishonesty and couldn't take the phony "black" hair on a 70-year-old.
Or the fact that he chickened out of World War II.
She knew frauds, I'll give her that.
I don't always agree with Ann but she has more balls then everyone in obama's administration, including Hillary.
Audio books.
Her solution was to kill everyone in America who wasn't a brilliant uber-achiever. Literally starve millions of people to death. I was taken in by her books when I first read them. I scowled at homeless people when they asked me for change.
It's an evil philosophy. I lean towards libertarianism, but Rands version of objectivism is much too extreme.
Blah blah. So, was our current economic mess created by the U.S. "overly generous" social programs, or because of Rand acolytes feel the market is god and king no matter the long-term costs?
You know what the funny thing is. On the top five books read by investment bankers, Atlas Shrugged is on that list. Its philosophy is then uniquely equated to our current financial collapse. The whole socialism thing that the original author hinted at was in response to the collapse, certainly not the cause of it.
This mess was created by people who thought they were entitled to massive money because they made massive money. They assume that if they are earning a lot of money, it is because they are offering the world something that just had to be great and awesome.
Nothing could be further from the truth. These intelligentsia of the finance world were hardly that. They gambled with America's fortunes and lost. It turns out that in the end, just because you are very well paid doesn't actually mean that you know jack shit. The people leading AIG's financial arm simply did not know jack shit.
Atlas shrugged is really only used by pathetic people making a pathetic justification of their worth.
yeah makes me chuckle that so many around here trip over themselves to cheer for old ronnie. fact is he was a poor b-movie actor that played a remarried president in his most notable role. if you guys want to look for 'prophecy' in literature, how about checking out a little J. G. Ballard:
http://info.interactivist.net/node/3244
Yep, put it on my itouch and it was the best listening ever.
this just bleeds irony. you complain about 'soundbite reality' and people barely remembering a year ago about a war which needs the recollection of the last eight years.
nice job.
Sex is a self gratifying act and any healthy individual NEEDS it in order to stay focused. I really believe that that is why Rand interjected the sexual relationships into AS. To make a point, albeit a "hidden" one. I also believe that since she was way ahead of her time that that was her little move towards womens liberation. Because after all who ever heard of a woman back then actually "enjoying" sex.
Going to work on "It can't happen here" just as soon as I get it loaded onto my itouch.
Easier that way.
lets be careful with the rand and orwell comparisons. one wanted a slave class in service of the rich the other wrote the magnificent 'down and out in paris and london'. though you'd have to read more then 'greatest hits' to know this.
Well if that's what you take away from her books then you've completely misunderstood her writings.
Off-topic, but – It's the main reason I haven't been posting in the comments for about a month. Way too slow. I sent a note to the BH website, but got no response.
"The character names that all sound like secret identities for future X-Men"
You have to realize what time frame this was written in, we're talking "Beaver Cleaver" era.
"Populism" crosses party lines because it's a natural reaction of the weak-minded, i.e. the religious/"values voter" side of The Right and the class envy side of The Left.
"Liberal" Populism generally takes the form of financial and/or "status" envy: "Those eeeeevil wealthy ELITES and their havin-more-money than me! I hate them, so they MUST be the cause of all my problems! We should pass laws to make them not be able to have all that money!!!"
"Conservative" Populism, well… you can read that all over this and other blogs. It's ALSO about class and hatred of "elites," but in this case it's intellectual-elitism and spiritual/sexual class that divies the world up into goodies and baddies in the eyes of the populists: "Those eeeeevil liberal ELITES and their smarty-pants science and evolution! And those heathens with their abortions and their loose/alternative sexualities! I hate them, so they MUST be the cause of all my problems! We should pass laws against all their fun, and kick the crap outta their science, too!!!"
Ayn Rand offers nothing to the contemporary American family suffering through the rigors of a modern financial crisis.
If one desires a plausible reason to nurture despotic greed and pathological selfishness then Rand will most definitely offer you an ideal to worship.
Oddly enough, those who find themselves thumbing through a King James version bible as a life resource often look to atheistic, childless Ayn Rand for leadership.
Atlas Shrugged is easily my all-time favorite book.
Ayn Rand's philosophy aside, her characterization, use of imagery, and other literary tools are very deft. That's obviously the reason her philosophy resonates so strongly throughout the book.
I read it for the second time right after the election, and it got even better. In this current climate, I revisit certain sections to keep my head straight.
Actually it was "overly generous" (to put it VERY kindly) social programs that created the current economic mess.
The sub-prime mortgage collapse, redlining, and the Community Reinvestment Act powered this downturn.
Oh, I'm sorry … is that racist to say that??
It says so much about you that you consider a short story called "Why I Want to F__k Ronald Reagan" prophetic.
Did you actually read it? Or see that it was written in 1967? then given out in 1980 at the RNC? all pretty prophetic (and probably pathetic as well) to me.
No, not racist. just horrendously miss-informed. any facts or what these programs were to back this up?
I'm reading it myself right now. Amazing. She was a prophetess…who's probably been turning over in her grave for the last nine months or so (along with the founding fathers)….
Do you mean by 'it' The Fountainhead? I found it very useful to read before Atlas Shrugged. It flows a bit quicker. Finished it off in about five days.
You poor disillusioned fool. Rand's take on "selfishness" seems to have eluded you. She merely is trying to put forth the IDEALS of what a selfish society should "project". Which is to say that being selfish and wanting things only for ones self is OK, IF that is what a person so chooses. It's all about freedom of choice, freedom of government etc.
Christians should not be threatened by Objectivism. There is a physical and a spiritual world after all. Rand's analysis is an ideology that seeks to answer, "What is reality?" She seeks to set our ontological bearings aright after the dialectics of Hegel and Marx (which from my reading demolish the idea of truth with thesis, antithesis and synthesis) and Kant's transcendentalist arguments (his "Critiques", e.g.).These three authors, and perhaps Plato, are quite destructive of productive society. Nietszche himself does make some similar claims as Rand, but his conclusions are quite different (such as his reaffirmation of mythos).
Y'know, when y'look at it at a certain angle, even WITH Rand's philosophies coming out of their mouths (over and over and over…) the "good guy" roster of Atlas Shrugged fits pretty well with what I imagine many here would call a "liberal Hollywood" template of heroism: A tougher-than-the-boys female lead, ("I'm the man." Anyone? Anyone?), a charismatic corporate-targeting pirate, a wealthy Latino laughingstock (John Leguizamo, I'm telling you…) who turns out to secretly be the sharpest dude in the room, a miserably-married guy who attains happiness and self-actualization through liberating adultery with the definative I'm-no-homemaker working chick… and finally a working-class, apparently self-taught and dogmatically anti-spiritualist engineer who invents an Alternative Energy solution and leads a movement of fellow enlightened, free-minded people to join him in a technological neverland until "the rabble majority" are done bringing The End on themselves
My favorite Stoic is Marcus Aurelius. Aristotle is not exactly a Stoic, but he is one of the major intellectual influences on Rand herself.
Actually, Wright returned with his mistress, Mamah Cheney (pronounced "MAY-muh CHEE-nee") in 1910 (Rand was 5 at the time). Mamah was one of several people murdered by arson at Taliesin in 1914. By the time Rand was researching "Fountainhead", Frank was married to his third wife, Olgivana, who would have had the cajones to kill Rand and dump her body in a river if she even suspected an affair.
so if the population 'CHOOSES' more regulation and workers rights in an election does that count too? or no?
Ann Coulter is my ideal Dagney Taggart.
Perhaps you are conflating Marcusian and Foucaultian dribble with "high art"?
Atlas Shrugged is not just a "novel" it is a philosophical manifesto. It is the culmination of her ideas practically illustrated. She left us 1200 pages of thought-provoking text, and an editor cannot be trusted to cut out what is philosophically relevant and what is superfluous. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx have two of the most complete systems of thought of the last 150 years. No one was crying for him to cut down his three volume work "Capital" (of course the third highly edited by Engels and others). This isn't an issue of Strunk & White, it's an issue of the basis for a happy, stable and prosperous civilization.
Ayn Rand's characterizations in Atlas Shrugged deft?! Her main characters are one-dimensional, plodding in their plot roles and monotonously self-absorbed- the only exception to this being Dagny's sizzling sexuality.
Rand's philosophy resonates strongly simply because of how blatantly sincere she was in presenting an ideal that packaged pure greed in a form that evoked a strange concern in the unenlightened reader for her 'struggling' rich who are deeply incapable of feeling even the slightest ripple of human compassion toward the common man.
Oddly, it is the common man who most often toils through Atlas Shrugged and comes away with some bizarre sense of renewed faith in human endeavor whilst not realizing that the weary average man, woman and child he represents are the ultimate villains in Rand's rather sordid world.
There's much truth in what you say, but I'm not sure I would equate junk science with pure science. And abortion is "fun?" Really? In that case, I guess I'm a populist, because that's the kind of fun I want reduced dramatically. I would put those who deny evolution and those who call anthropomorphic global warming/climate change "settled" on about the same scientific level. It's zealotry, but I'm not sure it's populism.
But as for populism itself (and zealotry, for that matter) you are absolutely correct that both ends of the political spectrum have a large measure of it. In my original post, I was referring specifically to the populist reaction to the AIG scandal, and didn't really intend it as a general discussion of populism. Which is why I referred in that post to populism as class envy socialism. Hence, in that context, populism leaned more to the left than to the right. Obiously, that is not the case in all outbreaks of populism.
I can't "verify" any of this with links (and I've looked) but for all those afraid of what might be "done" to the story by a film version, be thankful for what you JUST missed out on. A few years back it was going to be a TNT miniseries (they were big on classic-lit adaptations at the time) but Leonard Peikoff killed the deal (allegedly) because of MAJOR changes to the third act. How major? Well…
I've heard a few different versions of what the details were, but in summary: Aliens (as in from outer space) as a new deus-ex-machina. The accounts differ on certain points, but the basic idea I'd heard was that Galt was either revealed to be an Alien himself, or at least that his motor derived from Alien technology, and his "master plan" was in-part an effort by Alien observers to save humanity (or at least the "worthy" ones) from itself.
That's why Faulkner advised "kill your darlings."
Funny thing is, Nikolai Tesla basically had that motor at Wardenclyffe and Colorado Springs. Galt's motor harnessed energy from the atmosphere. Rand didn't invent that from whole cloth.
It counts, just so long as it really IS of their choosing and not foisted off as something other then what they actually chose.
I was thinking of Bisbee when I read it too.
Why are you ranting about folks blaming eight years of the Bush presidency for much of our current troubles when YOU handily turn right around and start blaming a man who hasn't been president for more than a few months?
Now that is 'twisted logic of the first order'- as you say.
And to compare the communication capabilities of Bush and Obama is an exercise in senselessness. You would have to be blind and deaf not to appreciate the fact that Bush was a horrible communicator to the point where Bush himself was honest about his obvious lack of verbal finesse.
And, no, we don't want to shoot the press. If so, America, as we know it, would cease to exist and instantly become the very thing you say you hate about the current administration.
Your rant is expressing an insignificant level of common sense for the amount of words you've posted.
Definitely, I'm re-reading "Liberal Fascism" right now again, and it's almost scary to compare how many of the movements, ideas and tactics, are repeating themselves. The "AIG Home Tour" was the most creepy thing I've seen in a good long while when it comes to populism running amok in the US. I mean in France you expect it, but in Connecticut though? It makes me shake my head.
"And abortion is "fun?" Really? In that case, I guess I'm a populist, because that's the kind of fun I want reduced dramatically."
Yeah, whoa. Whoops. I should REALLY clarify my point there…
What I was driving at was more the idea that religious-traditionalist populism aims it's class-hatred at the "class" that lives (or aims to live) the sexual part of their lives in "defiance" of said traditionalism. Hence the "conservative" populism's demand that laws be revised to punish or impede this "class's" practices of, for example, recreational copulation (abstinence-only education, etc.) or homosexuality (prop 8.) I'd include abortion on that list because, well… while many libertarians/libertines dance around or WON'T admit this, I will: ONE of the reasons (though not the main one) I support reproductive choice is because it IS a way to avoid unintended "consequences" of casual sex.
(continued)
…So, then, abortion isn't "fun," but ONE of it's uses (even I feel a touch "wrong" about saying "benefits" in this case) is that it can divert the IMPEDMENT of fun. Although I hasten to add that a condom and/or a gallon-sized jug of RU486 is an infinently better solution.
10 Conditions For Transition To Communism
(1)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
(2)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
(3)Abolition of all right of inheritance.
(4)Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
(5)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
cont.
(6)Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
(7)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
(8)Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(9)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
(10)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Except for #10 why the HELLo would anyone agree to any of these.
Perhaps it is because obama is doing more to harm the U.S. in the short time he has been in office then W did in all the EIGHT years that he was in office. Just a guess but I could be wrong..Naah, that's not it.
Be VERY concerned that he is probably getting macevellian advice from the likes of James Carville..A master of deception and lies.
"Except for #10 why the HELLo would anyone agree to any of these."
Power, pure and simple. It gives a sense of entitlement to people who feel "oppressed" and lets them get their anger out on their erstwhile-oppressors. The fact that the 20th century showed how misguided the theory was doesn't mean anything to them, they think (as all "progressive movements") that they're smarter than everyone else, so they can make it succeed where others couldn't. So a desire for power, but combined a narcissist streak a mile wide that allows them to ignore that they're pushing for a provably failed system.
Fair enough. I, like most Americans to one degree or another, have a strong moral objection to abortion. And I will admit that in my case, it stems from my religious as well as my moral senses. I am not an absolutist, but I'm close. I think current science supports the conservative objection to courts getting their noses into it (the Roe v Wade "viability" standard was set far too late to fit into the concept of the fetus not being a human being). I simply can't get my head around a baby being simply an "unintended consequence."
Fair enough. I, like most Americans to one degree or another, have a strong moral objection to abortion. And I will admit that in my case, it stems from my religious as well as my moral senses. I am not an absolutist, but I'm close. I think current science supports the conservative objection to courts getting their noses into it (the Roe v Wade "viability" standard was set far too late to fit into the concept of the fetus not being a human being). I simply can't get my head around a baby being simply an "unintended consequence."
But I take your stand as reasonable and logical. I just don't agree. I don't consider abortion to be "reproductive choice" when it's the result of casual sex. I consider it an attempt to cover up irresponsible sexual activity by committing a morally reprehensible act. Nevertheless, I am not an opponent of the "morning-after" pill, and though I intensely dislike the concept, I do not oppose state abortion laws that limit termination of pregnancy to a very (and I mean VERY) early stage, or to a pregnancy resulting from rape, incest, or to protect the physically endangered life of the mother (again, at a very early stage). My parents had a simple way of putting it to me, "if you can't be good, be careful." It resulted in my having a very liberal attitude towards sex before marriage and a very conservative attitude towards sex outside of the marriage. My attitude towards pregnancy resulting from casual sex comes from the same lessons.
But I take your stand as reasonable and logical. I just don't agree. I don't consider abortion to be "reproductive choice" when it's the result of casual sex. I consider it an attempt to cover up irresponsible sexual activity by committing a morally reprehensible act. Nevertheless, I am not an opponent of the "morning-after" pill, and though I intensely dislike the concept, I do not oppose state abortion laws that limit termination of pregnancy to a very (and I mean VERY) early stage, or to a pregnancy resulting from rape, incest, or to protect the physically endangered life of the mother (again, at a very early stage). My parents had a simple way of putting it to me, "if you can't be good, be careful." It resulted in my having a very liberal attitude towards sex before marriage and a very conservative attitude towards sex outside of the marriage. My attitude towards pregnancy resulting from casual sex comes from the same lessons.
The thing that gets me is that the people who are agreeing to all of this are the lower, uneducated people who don't even know what they're throwing away by going along with what obama is throwing at them. They really do believe that he has their best interest at heart. I feel sorry for those people because obviously ignorance is bliss.
The thing that gets me is that the people who are agreeing to all of this are the lower, uneducated people who don't even know what they're throwing away by going along with what obama is throwing at them. They really do believe that he has their best interest at heart. I feel sorry for those people because obviously ignorance is bliss.
There was a second part to this response, but for no apparent reason, it disappeared into the moderation rabbit hole. I hope it reappears later. It explains my general opposition to abortion, the exceptions I can live with, my liberal attitude towards casual sex and my conservative attitude towards the results of that casual sex.
I'm not a religious person at all but even I object to abortion. It should be simple common sense that dictates that killing an innocent life is amoral and unjust. It doesn't take a preacher to figure that one out.
I'm not a religious person at all but even I object to abortion. It should be simple common sense that dictates that killing an innocent life is amoral and unjust. It doesn't take a preacher to figure that one out.
Hey, Sarge: I didn't intend to imply that only religious people oppose abortion. I know many people who are not particularly religious who feel the same way. I was just trying to be completely open and honest about where my personal opposition comes from.
Hey, Sarge: I didn't intend to imply that only religious people oppose abortion. I know many people who are not particularly religious who feel the same way. I was just trying to be completely open and honest about where my personal opposition comes from.
I didn't take offense or take it personally Lawhawk..I just wanted it to be known that a person doesn't necessarily need to be religious to know the difference between right and wrong.
I didn't take offense or take it personally Lawhawk..I just wanted it to be known that a person doesn't necessarily need to be religious to know the difference between right and wrong.
BTW, I do believe in a higher being I just don't go to church in order to validate that belief.
BTW, I do believe in a higher being I just don't go to church in order to validate that belief.
$ Nice to see folks are rediscovering "Atlas Shrugged". Mike, I believe Francisco D'Anconia is Argentine, not Chilean. Time to get back to "The Valley" $
$ Nice to see folks are rediscovering "Atlas Shrugged". Mike, I believe Francisco D'Anconia is Argentine, not Chilean. Time to get back to "The Valley" $
I don't think you'll be disappointed -wonderful film – powerful and the acting is first rate.
I don't think you'll be disappointed -wonderful film – powerful and the acting is first rate.
He blew it more than once. The Marin Civic Center leaked like a sieve, and has had to be repaired multiple times to keep the place from flooding. Falling Waters, an absolutely beautiful creation, has had to be shored up at least twice to keep it from falling into the stream, and the surrounding rocks have needed reinforcement since the house changed the flow of the stream, undermining some of the boulders.
Funny … I'd always thought that Robin Hood was more the type who robbed from the nobles who'd taxed the working class to death, then gave the food and money back to the people who'd earned them. The "rob from the rich and give to the poor" thing really got misinterpreted, but I'm not sure by whom.
Well, then you may dispute this with Prof. Jerry Larson, Director of Architecture & Interior Design, University of Cincinnati, College of Design Architecutre Art & Planning, School of Architecture & Interior Design. http://www.uc.edu
Oh yeah. Absolutely. It was said that FLW couldn't design a roof that wouldn't leak. And his hubris regarding the structural issues @ Fallingwater was astounding. Edgar (I think) Kaufman, the owner, had FLW's design for the largest cantilevered terrace reviewed by structural engineers before any concrete was poured (steel reinforced concrete was a semi-new building method at the time). The engineers wanted FLW to put more steel into the design. FLW refused, and the day the forms were removed, the first cracks developed. The first time I visited the house, I took a photo of one of the cracks which I keep framed by my drafting table, to keep me humble. But FLW was an innovator, which is part of his genius. His roofs leaked mostly because in his later residential work he loved flat roofs, and he was ahead of the technology needed to make them work. EPDM ("rubber" membrane) roofing materials weren't invented until well past his death. Same for the roof and wall lighting on the Johnson Wax hdqtr's. No one had ever tried to use glass tubes in this way before. So again the technology to make the seals between the tubes watertight just wasn't adequate. But still both buildings are stunning. And this from the man who said "An architect must be a master builder". Like I said, hubris.
Wright was heavily influenced by his visits to Japan. Looking at his designs for homes, such as the Prairie House, are distinctly Japanese in shape, design and balance, let alone small touches such as roof angle and high side walls.
He was a fan of Japanese art and had visited the country in 1905. He viewed the detached palace at Katsura and the world exhibition back when we had world exhibitions. His designs took a major turn after this trip. As did his concepts and techniques for joining materials. For example the pagodas and other Japanese structures he examined were built to withstand earthquakes, yet contained no nails or steel of any kind. Many of these techniques were thousands of years old. The cantilever design and balance of weight systems he saw first hand in Japan changed his ideas of architecture and his life.
Wright designed many structures in Japan, including the Prime Minister's residence. His crowing glory in that country was the Imperial Hotel, which opened the same day as the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. It was the only building in the city not damaged. It was a combination of art deco and Oriental design. Truly a work of art. It survived the earthquake of 1923 and all of the bombings of WWII. What it did not survive was progress. Japanese love new things, and the hotel was not 'new' enough. It was razed in the 70s amid outcry in architectural circles. I heard a story that supposedly, Wright's wife, who was still alive at that time, laid down in front of bulldozers in an attempt to stop the demolition.
The Imperial Hotel which now takes up the same location is a standard glass and steel structure. About as exciting as a shopping mall.
They saved one room, though, a bar, the interior of it, anyway, and installed it in the new Imperial Hotel. When you enter the bar, you feel like you walked into a Connery James Bond movie designed by Ken Adam.
Yes. That's a common complaint of Cooper's portrayal.
Don't be so sure. The money bags of liberals, Soros is a hedge fund guy who's doing very well. No, it will be a Walmart or Halliburton entity, for certain. Either that or Oil.
Well, actually, altruism never comes into play with liberals. Not really. They say it does, but they are frauds, by and large. Survey after survey finds conservatives give to charities more than liberals by overwhelming margins (factoring in income, of course).
I have yet to meet a self-described liberal whom I thought, truly, was a person who cared for others, even half as much as they claim, which they do at every opportunity.
That is the one underlying reason why I no longer consort with liberals, if I can help it. Liberals are frauds. I can stomach a lot – thieves, scoundrels, killers, even – but not frauds. I want to know that the person I am spending moments of my life with is honest about their beliefs and their actions, their life. If not, why bother with them? Why waste a second of your own life on another's self delusion? Lies are one thing, but delusions are quite another.
To paraphrase Claude Raines in one of his smaller roles, "a person who tells lies, hides the truth. But someone who tells half lies has forgotten where he put it."
And that is a very dangerous person to be around. Everyone tells lies at one time or another, but not everyone is delusional, believing their own lies to the point of risking others' lives (never their own). Delusion is a sign of mental illness, and many liberals are, by their very words and actions, mentally ill.
That's B.S. It doesn't matter what type of writing you're doing, you're never too good for an editor. And if you can't write clearly enough so that an editor can differentiate between what is "philosophically relevant and what is superfluous" then you haven't written ANYTHING philosophically relevant. If an editor can't tell, how the hell can the average reader?
"Delusion is a sign of mental illness, and many liberals are, by their very words and actions, mentally ill."
Funny line coming from someone named Schizoid Mann.
Fact is, all ideologies contain large numbers of hypocrites, extremists, the deluded and the ignorant.
I care nothing for the superstition of god but am very close to a tiny number of really outstanding Christians who embody their beliefs without the overt superiority and dichotomous thinking that creates the modern Christian profile. I have no interest in some sort of conversion but I hang with these folk simply because they are good folks who care about the larger picture and embrace me in spite of our many differences.
On the other hand, I have met liberals who I, also, want nothing to do with simply because they have a very difficult time separating themselves from political beliefs that become fundamentalist judgment systems that easily rival the constrictive script of any orthodox religion. And in doing so they become less human and likable and just as disconnected from their responsibilities in the larger picture as the sleazebag Galts they are critical of.
Been around the block many times and I can assure you the frauds are thick in ALL ideologies.
This is what serves for logic? "On the top five books read by investment bankers, Atlas Shrugged is on that list. Its philosophy is then uniquely equated to our current financial collapse." Ha ha ha ha ha. What are the other 5 books so we can can burn or discredit them too? And where o where did you get that info? I seriously doubt even 3% of financial types have read Atlas Shrugged – they simply don't have time or the inclination to read lengthy fiction. Even so, how can you blame a book for being misinterpreted, since Rand would consider these folks moochers and looters herself? Do you argue that the Koran should be banned because so many jihadis misinterpret that book too?
Sociopath! Their bull$hit becomes their reality. The good news, they’re easy to pick out with their veiled arrogance, and a snotty sanctimonious tone.
" Robin Hood, you see, stole from men who knew how to create wealth and gave it to people who didn’t."
Ouch! That's terrible history. I don't recall the Sheriff of Nottingham "creating" much wealth, but perhaps I read an abridged version of the story.
You can't be serious. Are you such a dogmatic that you are blind to the fissures in your own party? I have no vested interest in Obama but surely you aren't saying that America actually improved under Bush?
Republicans had a historic chance to cut deficits, address corruption and government waste and improve the competitiveness of the American system.
They achieved none of this. Amazing how speedily conservatives (and I am a fiscal conservative) jump into the blame game when the political climate switches. Their consternation should be pointed at the most obvious problem- their OWN party!
The Republican party is in tatters. It will achieve n.o.t.h.i.n.g as long as its childish members refuse to address significant internal issues one of which is the destructive plague of extreme right-wing thinking.
>> "Populism" crosses party lines because it's a natural reaction of the weak-minded,
Of course "populism" was what America was founded on. It was a revolt against the rich and powerful.
The problem with this Randian nonsense is that it assumes that the rich and powerful are deserving of their wealth. That is frequently not the case.
Another problem is that a great many of the "producers" are themselves also socialists. Do I need to run through the list of wealthy Democratic donors wo are also capitalists and businessmen? The US Chamber of Commerce supported that trilliion dollar "stimulus" monstrosity.
Are you paranoid? Interesting how the delusional conservative is able to, um, 'discern' veiled arrogance from a simple comment yet an entire book filled with it (Atlas Shrugged) is worshiped as gospel. And to make this worse most of these fraud conservatives are probably poor folks who've been mentally-conditioned to rejoice in their financial subsistence.
Ah, yes the plight of the common man…the invalid (read incapable) at the root of all liberal wet-dreams.
Greed is not the sin it is made out to be by the Looters and Mouchers. Envy is the sin!!! Without greed there is no engine to drive or pull along every single one of the planks in the liberal agenda. The shackles (Economic Fairness) put upon greed by the plight of the common man only serve to make every man poorer and worse off. The inefficiencies inherent to controlling greed serve only to retard the betterment of everyone's position.
Every man is a common man…you cannot improve the lot of any man by effectively pulling down and retarding the motivations of any other man.
I have a friend who took a p/t job stocking greeting cards at Wallie World about 8 yrs ago. She is now a district manager, makes good money. No eductation past 11th grade. I guess Wal-Mart really IS eeevil! LOL.
SteveM,
You present some good points.
Many Galts also inherit their wealth, as in the case of Dagny, which in many instances creates contempt and arrogance toward those who are not as fortunate which is the antithesis of the goodwill and empathy most normal children are taught to exhibit as they are reared.
Additionally, a large portion of Galts in contemporary society run successful public businesses on the combined investments of millions of average Americans which reinforces the concept that wealth does not occur solely in a vacuum as suggested by the conspiracy-touting Rand.
The landscape of wealth-generation is changing dramatically with the advent of a society that is ever more reliant on large-scale harmony and social networking.
Galts who misunderstand this phenomenon and choose to move to the fantasy land outlined by Rand may find their businesses and wealth-creation machines dead-pooled.
Certainly neither….it was caused by ineffectual government interference that introduced skewed incentives into the market.
Everyone says FH is the one to read first, but I read Atlas back in high school, then read more later. Never read FH, but am going to get it, then start over with her books. If you haven't read 5,000 Yr Leap, or America Alone, or Liberal Fascism, those are all good choices too, IMO>
Do the intense debate. I have a long posting history here, that goes back since day 1, and only two of my posts have ever disappeared. One eventually showed up, two days later.
Remember- Rand's book is.a.story. It.isn't.real.
The plot to 'retard' the self-absorbed rich man doesn't exist. He is paranoid and insecure, therefore an easy mark for a massive book justifying his indifference to society.
Well, he's indifferent to the common man until his businesses fail. And when they spill red he comes crawling back to the public trough begging for sustenance.
I believe the Cato Institute has similar ideals in place….http://www.cato.org
When elaborating on literary discussions and demeaning others' lack of depth, it is advisable to use common English punctuation and to avoid too much reliance on the miracles of spell-check. This will allow them to hold your opinions in higher esteem. Then you will at least seem more educated than you are.
Rand wasn't popular with ALL of the upper crust in her day, I imagine she would still be warring with some, even today. Same thing with her arch nemesis, WF Buckley. I think all the stories about how she would never forgive him for the bad review he wrote, and how she wouldn't attend a party he was attending is hilarious. Now they probably would be friendly.
Man, do you realize that Ayn Rand is only fiscally-conservative and is an extreme social liberal on most other issues? She entirely rejects religion (the which I applaud). I am fascinated by this obsession by the conservative crowd over Rand.
Let me back up here. Are you a fiscally-conservative Libertarian?
I love how the "religious right/values voters" are weak-minded in Movie Bob's dissertation. I have noticed this for a while now, he has to crap on those who are religious, or sound southern, or folksy, or who believe in God. Lovely broad brushing, MB. Talk about lumping people in classes. True Conservatives don't see colors or groups of people. We just see people. Way to be a progressive there, Bob!
You are also broad-brushing. Not all who ARE the intelligentsia of the financial world gambled with America's fortunes, some have worked very hard to do their jobs. You can't lump everyone together! Not all AIG employees are bad, nor all Bear Sterns, Lehman, etc. Some did nefarious deeds, yes, but our Congress was just as duplicitous, if not more, since they are public servants, for causing the fix we are in.
Rand saw people who understood their worth. She didn't feel bad about being good at what she was good at. There is no shame in that. Only a fool like you, Oneshot, would make such a feeble attempt at attacking her. She stood for the individual, not for a collective. Tell us oh brilliant One are you an individual? What makes you special? Or do you merely follow the herd? Followers are not producers. Followers are unproductive. Followers never make anything of themselves or anything useful.
I love the Robinhood is immoral speech. That just resonates does it not? I am rereading Atlas Shrugged again and it blows me away. The breath of Rand's writing is just staggering.
That is really cool that the Spec Ops guys like this writing. I knew thats why I like em! Marines read it to. As far as people who discredit Rand my attitude is simple, the never read her, they fear her. They know if they have read her she was right to a certain extent. But thats what fear does.
Very interesting, Skip! As always. I love your little anecdotes and gossipy type H'wood tales. So dishy good! I never watched the movie, FH, because I just thought it wouldn't be good. I will watch now. As for AJ in Atlas, yikes! I say give her some sexy leather britches, and a big gun, and let her rip, just don't give her anything substantial to ruin. But, then again, I think most of those people bite it, so, I prefer they just don't make Atlas. With anyone. Rand did have issues, but was an interesting critter. She got weirder and weirder before she died.
Please define "deserving". I understand that many wealthy people did not come by their wealth through hard work or invention, but the market serves better to redistribute wealth than any government can. Many who inherit their wealth transfer it unwittingly to others who make better use of it. Many truly greedy people lose everything. Look at those who invested with Madoff. The market has discovered that much of this "wealth" is fiction and is adjusting itself. It is only the government wishing to intervene incompetently (as it has countless times before) which makes things even more difficult.
All of this is true….but please enunciate why any of this is unethical or unwanted behavior. Greed is not the sin it is made out to be by Looters and Mouchers. Envy is the Sin!!!
Stifling the engine with 'Economic Fairness' is not the solution….all men will be worse off without greed as the underlying motivation to increase wealth.
I think that description fits her pretty well, too. I can see why they were "buds."
Ohh they have parts of Rand's interview with Phil "smirk" Donahue on Youtube….she talks about her influences and she credits Aristotle as her greatest influence or one of them. They are worth looking at. And the Mike Wallace interview with her from very early on is on Youtube as well. Awesome stuff.
Good points. The hedge funds are big supporters of the Dems aren't they? Did you hear the quote from Soros the other day — after admitting that he made $2 billion in 2008 (shorting), he stated, "I've had a very good crisis." Yeah, no doubt.
I have to say, I am a reader, not so much a viewer for the very reason that my image is 99% of the time disillusioned. One of my favorite suspense/mystery writers is Jeffery Deaver. I was so excited when they made The Bone Collector, and it was going to be a big production with A list stars. I was so disappointed when I saw Angelina and Denzel as the leads, with Queen Latifah. I have no prob with AJ, or QL, and love Denzel's work, but they ruined it for me, along with a boring scripted mess. I also like the author Kathy Reichs, and saw the first episode of "Bones," and actually drew my husband in the room when I kept yelling at the tv. I know some book to movies deals work out great, some much better than the book, but I don't see them anymore, that way my book hasn't been ruined for me.
Great! I'm glad you like it. I aim to please. Besides, who better to recognize the mentally ill than the insane? (Thanks I just won five bucks, well, 500yen in a wager. I bet my friend a liberal would resort to that in the first sentence. )
But seriously folks, do you feel offended by my summary of liberal duality? I'm curious why you responded in this way. I find no need to reference your name as a supporting element in my argument, yet you found the need to do so. I'm just wondering if I triggered an emotional, well, trigger. Essentially, the question is, do you call yourself a liberal? Not that it would make any difference, because, from your words the answer appears quite obvious already.
As for the comment, well, I convey my personal experiences, because at the end of the day, that's all there is, really, one's own experience. Everything else is faith. Faith that the source you rely on is giving you the whole story, faith that the science was done properly, with proper controls and procedure, faith that someone else's personal experience is as extensive and supportive as one's own and therefore worth the time to consult. Faith. So, I humbly submit my own personal experiences here, in the pen name of my choice for you to accept or not and have faith that my experiences give me sufficient knowledge to come to the conclusion I have reached.
If you want references, links or citations (the written kind, not that boxy car from Chevy. Never really liked that design.) Sure, one can cite references up the wazoo (I'm not sure how to spell that, but that must be wrong). But what are references? Nothing more than a list of people who think like oneself on a given issue or topic. That's easy to find. I can state for the moment that the moon is made of green cheese. And I could find plenty of people who would agree and maybe even some who have written on it, published works, be willing to swear to the fact that the moon is, for all intents and purposes a lump of sage derby. That's no way to prove anything. Besides, groups of people can be fooled easier than individuals. History has proven that one too many times to count, if you believe in history. Faith again.
But anyway, what was the point again? Oh, yeah, essentially the maxim that arseholes come in every color. Yeah, that's fairly well known. I think I first read it in Cracked Magazine when I was a kid. I'll admit, I was pretty relieved when I discovered that fact about people. But, and here is that pesky critter again, in my experience, liberals, oh heck, we'll use the big "L", Liberals have populated the fraud fraternity hands down for as long as I can recall, which actually dates back to when I myself was called one.
How's that for proof of mental illness?
I have a blog in a British paper, (don't ask why, long dumb story), and I have been begging the Brits to let us take Hannan off their hands. Some of them have left me some nasty, nasty comments. Funny, tho, the only death threats I ever get are from the lefties in the USA. Sounds about right, I guess. Newsflash: Obama is anouncing he will send more troups to Afghanistan. Most libs will make excuses for this, even tho they wouldn't for Bush, like they have about wire-tapping, Gitmo, etc., but you can bet the far-lefties' heads will be exploding. I thank him for that, it needed to happen. Even crazy old Cindy Sheehan has been out with her megaphone dogging him. Funny how the media has ignored that………………I guess they have just been busy, and will get to it eventually.
Linday Grahamnesty-urine, that has to be the winning comment. I do think there are a good many in the House who are true Conservatives, that are young, and still follow their ideals. However, they never get the tv time or attention, the media only likes the Johnny Mac and his darlin daughter types. They enjoy the Republican party eating its own, it's just entertainment for libs. Those who are wishy-washy in their votes, and can't articulate the views, or stand up for them, need to be dumped, ASAP.
Oh, cool. You've used the words 'delusional' and 'fraud' both from my post (can't be coincidence. I don't believe in them). Can I cite you as a reference?
Just havin' some fun here. It's pretty late Tokyo time – give me a break! And anyway, the orderlies haven't come around to strap us into bed yet!
But I have to admit, I liked you better before you started with the name calling. Can we go back to those days? Is it too late for us?
I like your style. Good lateral thinking. By offering attractive alternatives to the status quo, change can be more easily implemented.
My sister has been a clerk/asst manager at UPS for 25 yrs. They NEVER will have those at full time employment. It bites, she would love to work full time, as she needs the money badly, and there aren't a lot of jobs in my hometown in Alabama. She has a college degree, but couldn't find anything that paid well, if anything at all, so she went to work at K Mart as a cashier 24 yrs ago, to fill in the hours not at UPS. She could be a full time mgr at K Mart, but it still doesn't pay as well as what she does now with keeping both jobs. Crazy. UPS is a hard job, but pays great, great benies.
AgileCyborg, I think your keyboard is not working. Better check it. Just a heads up.
And now back to comedy.
They're only good because you agree with them.
I have watched a few old clips with her, but didn't watch the Donahue appearance. Thanks for the heads up. My favorite PD guest interview was Milton Friedman. He made PD look like the wanker he is. Lovely. I don't normally watch Hannity, but he had Phil on recently, and i watched. Gosh is he ever the same old Collectivist b-tard he always was. I can't stand that jerk.
It’s like a shadow stock market, manipulating world economies. Wall Street being conservative is a myth. It’s inundated with guilt ridden liberals. Madoff, Stanford, Soros, Rubin, the list is long. Not to become conspiratorial, but it does make one wonder about last October, and the collapse of the economy, “October Surprise.” Hell, Barry was close and losing in some polls that threw him over the top, eh…gad! Throw the bums out took hold and here we are, God help us!
I loved WF Buckley, but so what? Who says you can't admire them both for their contributions? I like/dislike plenty of people who are of the same politcal stripe as I, but don't judge someone by someone else's opinion. If ou truly don't like Rand's books, that cool, but she is a serious author, and Buckley was a great man, one of a kind.
I've got to disagree. An unborn child is not an "impediment to fun," it's a living being–not fully developed, true, anymore than a 6-year-old is fully developed. While I oppose abortion on a religious/moral level, I don't think it should be illegal because of my religious convictions. It should be illegal because it violates someone's right to life without due process. In a way I admire Peter Singer for having the stones to say "Yes, a fetus is a human being, but it's okay to kill it," rather than dancing around it with "this isn't a human being at all."
You're a sad little man agilecyborg and I feel sorry for you. It's people with YOUR type of mindset who are ruining America today. Just exactly what is it that you have against freedom and capitalism? Or are you just another shill for obama.
Don't be such a child. The parallels between a post discussing mental delusions and an avatar name that implies schizophrenia are comedic at best which is exactly why I mentioned it in the first place.
My name implies a nimble composition which completely castrates your point here.
While it is true that not all wealthy people deserve to be so, it is also true that not all wealthy people are for socialism either. Another point is that even though some wealthy people may be crooks the majority of them DID earn their wealth the hard way, by WORKING for it. And even though there are those who "inherited" wealth it is still theres, to do with as they please. They should not be forced into "sharing" it, it should be a CHOICE.
You're absolutely right about liberals. Liberals delude themselves into believing that they are something they are not. And because they are not, they are constantly confronted with evidence that they are living a lie. But since they don't want to admit the truth, they willingly lie to themselves and choose to become intensely self-righteous defenders of the image.
The charity thing bothers me. As you note, they talk about charity, but they do not give. They talk about fairness and they demonize everyone who has more than they do, yet they themselves do not share. Nor will they acknowledge the facts when they are confronted with them. Instead, they assuage their guilt by accusing conservatives of being heartless.
Same thing on race, the environment, freedom of speech, and on and on and on. . .
I don't think anyone can honestly claim America improved. I think the seeds of the financial crisis were planted with the Clinton-era subprime loan requirements and got more than their share of water under George Bush. However, with emergency spending and expansion of power, the Obama administration has run up almost as much of a deficit and stomped on the Constitution almost as much in their first two months than in Bush's last two years. I'm not a dogmatic Republican; I'm a proud Libertarian Party member, and I criticized George Bush too. I'm not saying Bush was great, I'm saying Obama is doing the same thing–expanding government, spending like mad, and trashing our freedoms–but faster.
I wasn’t referring to you AgileCyborg, a bit touchy there however. In fact I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your back and forth, it makes it fun. I was giving a hear, hear to the, “21st Century Schizoid Man,” sorry man I dig King Crimson and your posts. You guys keep at it I’ll hush, shh…
Not at all. I just know good writing from mediocre writing. There is objectivism underlying my fundamental belief system, and I accept the magnitude of this Borglumesque momument, and it's popularity.
I've never read the book, but I've been seriously considering it as of late. The 'Robin Hood is immoral' speech is something that caught my eye though. We all know him as somone one who "robbed from the rich to give to the poor." Wealth re-distribution as it were.
But if I'm remembering the circumstances of Robin Hood correctly, weren't the poor impoverished because they were ridiculously overtaxed by the government? And wasn't Robin Hood fighting back against that government by taking back some of the excessive taxes and giving to the people it rightly belonged to in the first place?
No, I'm not saying that's the moral way to go about it, but I think the automatic assumption of wealth distribution as we know it might not necessarily apply in Robin Hood's case.
I read AS when I was 14. I know it is lengthy, and daunting for some who aren't regular readers, but I am glad she didn't have anyone edit her novels. They feel real in a way a lot of things don't. I guess it would help to pare it down for the general masses, but please, I just can't believe how little people read these days. It is an embarassment in this country that we have such a free society, no one dictates when, where, what or who you can read, but so many opt out to watch tv trash. That has always appeared to me as a slap in the face to one of our great freedoms.
As such you miss my point….I abhor the 'public trough' as much as anyone…it is but an inefficiency introduced into the market. The costs incurred by all in the name of Fairness are more onerous than the perceived inequities of a market left to its own forces.
Ayn Rand is a joke as a philosopher and as a novelist. Atlas Shurgged is probably the worst book I have ever read. The Fountainhead is slightly better, but Atlas Shrugged is an unbearable read and it makes me LOL that someone is writing a column about it in 2009.
Jake,
DFTT! I don't see Andrew of LawHawk here to remind you, so I filled in.
Attacking Rand obscures the issue, which I assume you do intentionally. The real issue is whether any govt can "manage" the economicl lives of, in our case, 330M people. So far, the answer throughout history is, ah, no they can't.
When you disconnect people with ultimate power, like the govt, from the discipline of actually having to make a living, you get what you are getting now. A govt that is borrowing to deal with over-borrowing. Even you can figure out that this might not work.
Pick on Wal Mar, they employ folks who have very few skills and pay more than a market rate. Question. How much SHOULD Wal Mart pay and why? How much Wal Mart charge for their goods and why? How much profit should Wal Mart make and why?
Deaver's one of my favorites too. I got hooked when I read "A Maiden's Grave"–still one of his top three in my opinion.
The problem with most readers is that we tend to forget that movies and books are two different mediums. They are not designed the same way. You will never get the same experience in both. Some things movies do better, other things novels do better, but neither can exactly duplicate the other.
Yes, amazing how he can say that, publicly, and not a single commentator in the mainstream press calls him on it. To bend one's reality to the limit, imagine the press remaining equally silent if Cheney said something akin to that at ANY time in his life, let alone during a crisis.
It might go something like this:
Headline:
200 SOLDIERS, 4000 CIVILIANS KILLED BY FAULTY HALIBURTON GEAR!
Cheney: "This has been a very good crisis so far. The faulty gear really made me a lot of money through my Haliburton contacts. So have my friends."
Just imagine. Lol!
Haha. So, I guess the answer to the question of you being a liberal is…? Children want to know!
Haha. Yes, he does seem a bit sensitive. Perhaps the wiring isn't up to spec in the old cyborg works, there. Somebody call Rudy Wells!
I always found it interesting that the actor who played that lovable semi bald cyborg designer and part time Love Boat captain look-alike, had a last name of Oppenheimer. Well, I always thought it was interesting, anyway.
Though, I'm sure he probably never said, "I am the destroyer of worlds" in passing.
I refuse to argue for the righteousness of the liberal collective. You cannot draw me down that road. I see too many issues with unbounded liberalism.
In spite of my last statement the idea that any one prominent ideology (conservatism, for example) contains such authority that it can rain perfect judgment on all the others is a misnomer that far too many intensely and blindly believe in.
I am not entirely blaming you for this activity, specifically, because you don't appear to be entirely viscerally-responsive like most of your cohorts in the concentrated end of the conservative pool. You seem clear-headed and thoughtful in spite of the fact that we probably have little in common politically.
I will state unequivocally that my experiences (since you mention this) span tremendous varying degrees of thought and viewpoint.
In the end, I have determined that the overtly conservative mind ultimately seeks a deep Utopian-like security through established and traditional thought patterns that, often, are created by environmental conditioning resulting from years of blind absorption from leaders granted with authority who command devotion and adherence to so-called principled views.
You mention liberal duality. The duality of the conservative mindset is rife with hypocrisy and duality, as well.
This thread is a prime example:
Most conservatives are faith-based and family-oriented yet the polarizing philosophy of Ayn Rand is bandied about like she a prophetess to the movement.
Ayn opted NOT to have children and is an atheist. She questioned the relevancy of marriage (even though she was married) and her her views on sexuality would cause any conservative Christian (or Muslim) female to register disdain. And this is just the beginning.
Problem is many conservatives have been mentally-designed to reinforce whatever is approved by their chosen authority figures (Glenn Beck, Rush, the pastor, mom and dad and so on) rather than independently applying their minds to what they are absorbing which, in this case, is the antithesis of what most of them believe in; divinely-inspired scripture.
Oddly enough, almost none of these people really even read their own bibles which forms the basis of the entire conservative movement.
You reference the liberal duality (which I am sure exists within many corners) but the duality I mention above in reference to Conservationism far outweighs anything I've seen within the liberal ranks.
It makes me LOL that someone like you actually knows how to read.
Spot on! (of course, that is just because I agree with it!) But also well said! So you get points for making points (that I agree with) and saying them well, well, writing them well, uh, you know what I mean. In other words, not like that.
One final thing to note: as a writer, I don't believe I ever get the whole story on paper myself. For one example, after I wrote my first novel (unpublished, and rightfully so since it needed massive work!) I wrote a screenplay version of it. The novel was 95,000 words long; the screenplay was 118 pages. If you know the difference between the two formats, you'll see that the two were nowhere near identical! Yet both had equal "rights" to say they were the story because while neither of them matched 100% with what I saw in my head, both retained aspects of it. While different, both were faithful to the story. If they had both been presented to the world polished, I would not say either one was "better" than the other; they were merely different. I think writers need to be able to detach themselves from the story. The story exists as it is; you're just the conduit.
My response to your presentation of liberal duality above addresses this question.
I wish I could give more that one "thumbs up".
I thumb my nose at your ASSumptions.
I've read it seven times and each time given my copy away to someone I thought would benefit from it. And they all have. Now I have to get myself yet another copy!
The problem is Washington and all Washington politicians right or left. The intent of the Founders was limited federal government not lifetime careers for an “elite” political class. Washington K-street to Wall Street are in the midst of an act of self preservation. These are the same blistering intellects that gave us, Social Security, Medicare, Hedge Funds (shadow economy), Community Reinvestment Act, Sub-Prime Mortgages, 30 to 1 derivatives, repeal of Glass Steagal, TARP, the list could go on into perpetuity and belongs to Washington right and left. The swamp needs to be drained and start over again. Dogmatic extremism is a bore, left or right, define extremism?
Well….moving past the fact that I completely disagree with your inane assessment of Rand's work, you might want to consider proofreading before hitting that "Submit" key…I think you meant "my" rather than "by". But I could be mistaken…it happens fairly frequently.
Well, actually no. He was born extremely poor, and became a rich movie star through hard work. He achieved A-List status as an actor and was one of the most popular actors of the day. His best man at his wedding was William Holden another very popular actor of the day.
During the war, he also helped produce and starred in a series of military morale and education films to help in the war effort as a member of the Army Air Corps. His superiors felt he could best serve in that capacity as did many actors.
He ran for the position of President of the Screen Actors Guild, won, and was re elected. He ran for the position of Governor of California, won, and was re-elected. He ran for the position of President of the United States, won, and was re-elected.
Not bad for a poor boy.
Oh Patty. The fact that a 60 year old book has moved from 1000 to 37 in a matter of months on Amazon's list warrants absolutely no press coverage. You couldn't explain objectivism or its tenets if Ayn Rand told it to you herself. The reason why you couldn't explain it is because you are completely indoctrinated and have lost the ability to freely think. We are all born with this ability, but you have lost it. The only way to get it back is to stop smelling your own farts and blow up your hybrid. Oh wise one, whom do you suggest we read? Chomski? Krugman? Gore? Marx? Dr. Seuss?
Fascinating individual, that Tesla. The more I learn about him, the more I want to know. There's a lot of misinformation about him, as well. A huge amount, in fact. Why, there's probably more discoveries attributed to Telsa than quotes to Mark Twain.
And I'm pretty sure Mark Twain said that, too.
Don't laugh. I just read a column about it in 2009. How about you?
I wouldn't expect much else from you. Simplest thing to do is thumb the nose. Beats using the old noggin', eh, sarge?
Yeah brother a little righteous indignation, huh? I didn’t mean to interfere in your reasoned sparing, I was actually enjoying the thread. This is obviously someone who doesn’t like dissent. His premise that conservatives worship Atlas Shrugged was becoming a bit tedious, however. Look forward to your post SM!
Much, much longer than nine months.
Great summation counselor!
http://www.teslasociety.com/famousfriends.htm
Robin Hood was a nobleman who faught in the Crusades. He comes back and the govt has stolen all his property. The politicians are living rich off of what they have stolen. He steals to GIVE to the poor until he can reclaim what the government has stolen from him. Sounds to me like he is a good conservative. Fights for his country, wants to keep his own money and gives to the poor.
LOL! I know what you mean. Spend your well-earned yen wisely!
Really? I would have sworn Captain Stubing said that during one of the Charo episodes…
Haha. Right there on top. Now, isn't that a funny coincidence?Since I don't believe in coincidences, that must mean there is meaning there. Or here. Or somewhere in the vast quantum field. If only we had a Tesla here to explain it. But since he is, in a way, here, being part of the field, and all, maybe he made me think of Twain?
You should know since you're the expert on it.
'eh wot?
Well, what makes things like that happen for me is Bali Blue Moon dark coffee at the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, but in you case it's probably gas.
Oh, c'mon. This isn't multiple choice, ya know. It's either 'Yes' or 'No'.
This is getting to be a real nail-biter here! I haven't felt this much suspense since waiting for part 2 of the Brady Bunch Hawaii episode!
Haha – Oh, wait a minute. Uh oh, I think he did!
You *are* joking, right? Do you always talk like that? Pretty impressive, I have to say, albeit a bit confusing. Why say in 10 words what you can say in 500, right?
Let me see if I can make heads or tails of it. Hold on, let me grab my thesaurus.
Ok, here goes. The thrust I get (whoa. not good imagery right off the bat, there. Sorry) Let's start again, your assertion is that duality exists in both movements, ideologies, right and left. And you refuse to go down roads with me. Ok, well, you're not the only one. "You're be surprised the amount of wear and tear that goes on out there in the field". Plus, you said you'd already been around the block a few times, so, maybe you're tired of road trips. Nuff said on that one.
Let's get back to the point:
In the conservative movement you mention an appreciation for Ayn Rand and a simultaneous religious belief as an example of duality.
Hmm. And that is a bad thing?
Hmm, again.
You use that example to defend against my assertion of duality, say rather, schizophrenic (I was really looking forward to using that) tendency of liberals to claim the high road of altruism, yet actually wearing a deep groove down the low road of hypocrisy by doing less to help others than so-called selfish conservatives.
Am I getting that right?
Conservatives: Ayn Rand and God = Duality.
Liberals: Claim to help others, yet don't = ?
I'm sorry, you've been a good sport playing the game, but you didn't make it to the next round. We have some lovely parting gifts for you, though. Everyone give Mr. Cyborg a big hand.
Thank you very much.
PS: I think, I hope, I pray you mean conservatism, not Conservationism. Am I right? Hey, we all make mistakes.
It is the liberal who can't resist the urge to cast aspersions on the 'common man' yet, at other times, claim theirs is the party of, what? the 'common man'. Simply marvelous.
It is the liberal who can't resist the urge to cast aspersions on the 'common man' yet, at other times, claim theirs is the party of, what? the 'common man'. Simply marvelous.
fiction. Ayn Rand wrote Fiction. she had no degrees in economics. her theories don't count.
Or spooky behavior at a distance.
You know, if you took all the economists in the world and laid them out end to end, they would never reach a conclusion.
Well, that's what gas is to me, and the farther away, the better. Ummm…good Bali Blue Moon.
In some ways Ayn Rand is wrong about Robin, in the sense that in the Feudal world the peasants were the producers. Men like the Sheriff of Nottingham were part of the Nobility (the protectors). Thus Robin was giving money back to the producers. Of course the popular tale was of Robin Hood, robbing the rich and giving it to the poor. Just my $0.02 as an amatuer medieval historian. As an aside I liked Rand's Anthem, I have yet to read Atlas Shrugged, its in the queue.
Ayn Rand labored mightily to excuse her own selfishness by creating a fantasy that says selfishness is good for everyone. Then she disguised the inherently subjective nature of a philosophy that says "self interest before all else!" by naming it Objectivism.
If you need a fairy tale to live your life by, you'd probably be a lot happier picking "Stone Soup".
[...] disagree with Rand’s objectivism, the book is worth a read. I came across a great blog post, Why “Atlas Shrugged” Matters. A long post, but a good read. « Twelve-Steps to Understanding [...]
Wow, you can't even address the issue.
How unsurprising.
Wow, you can't even address the issue.
How unsurprising.
Yeah, by all means, praise the company that has turned $13.00 / hr home improvement support into $7.50 / hr. greeters and checkers.
And let's not forget the SLAVE produced Chinese prison labor providers for Wal-Mart
And yet, surprise, surprise, surprise, Rand remains a plagarist fraud who palmed off her cowardly adaptation of Neitzche on a gullible pseudo-liberal crowd of fools.
And, of course, LABOR, not capital, produces product.
Yet Rand was all in favor of rewarding Capital to the exclusion of labor.
Wrong. Rand IS the problem, or more precisely, the worship of her fraudulent and stolen 'philosophy' of 'meritocracy' which rewards those whose only merit is already possessing wealth is the problem.
Because that way is global depression for lack of consumers (producers)
You might want to read Neitzsche and learn something about the real philosophy she plagarized.
She wasn't 'good' at anything but telling well off arrogant inheritance class capitalists what they wanted to hear.
Not surprising that fools like you think that rewarding the wealthy with endlessly growing wealth (positive feedback is always a dead end in any control system) is somehow 'foolish'.
I can't speak to her philosophy in any direct way. I am more interested in yours; are you in favor of taking money away from those who have legally earned it? That is called legal plunder, a favorite trick of the lame, lazy and addled.
Donahue is such a moron. Man, he can't think beyond square one.
"The whole socialism thing that the original author hinted at was in response to the collapse, certainly not the cause of it. "
Zeb Wheeler, you either haven't read the book or you are yourself misinterpreting it. In Atlas Shrugged the creep of Socialism into the economy and the meddling of politicians and populist public intellectuals in the economy along with the failure of some of the industrialists to properly manage their companies, and chose to try to suckle on the federal teat, rather than fix their own companies, was the cause of the economic decline in the book. It was then The meddling by politicians and the rapid growth of socialism that accelerated the economic decline, and was further spurred on by some of the industrialists who went along with the politicians and the populist demagogy of the public intellectuals.
Also the investment banker that read the book and helped caused these problems because they didn't understand one of the main tenets of the novel was that you cannot expect to get anything for free, you cannot expect to make money without providing a valuable service, something these people did not do, so even if they had read the book they didn't learn anything from it. The book clearly states the difference between false pride and the pride of true accomplishment.
It's working. The extra periods are a form of emphatic expression used often in online geek culture.
I think Pitt wanted a part but was only going to have a smaller role in it and John Galt was supposed to be an played by an unknown.
Someone may already have pointed this out, but having just recently read the book, I'm pretty sure it was "Wesley" Mouch, not Stanley. Was I reading some wackadoodle edition or was this just an honest mistake by Baron?
I dunno about "True Conservatives," but here in the real world people DO make judgements about people based on available information, manner-of-speaking certainly being one of them. It sucks, it's not fair, but there it is. I KNOW southern accent doesn't make one stupid, but I also KNOW that the broader culture has held the two as corollary for a long time now. And I know from whence I speak.
My natural speaking voice is fairly pronounced Boston accent. I've lived here for 28 years, it's how I talk. Now, I KNOW I'm not an idiot, but I've also learned – much to my annoyance – that unless your name is Mark Whalberg and you show up talking like that people ASSUME your, well, "wicked retarded." Thusly, if you meet me primarily in a professional or non-local circumstance, you'll probably never HEAR my real accent, because I've had to get very good at hiding it if I want to do any kind of work in media. I don't like it, and I'd love to be rich/powerful enough that nobody needs to care what I talk like, but for now I recognize the reality around me.
The Cleavers were a situation comedy. This is an allegedly dead-serious work, in which unless one is Charles Dickens there is no excuse for making your bad guy's name half-rhyme with "Weasley Mooch."
Why would my mindset be ruining America? I've been in business my entire life. I started a small enterprise out of high school and never looked back. My father has been a businessman his entire life and still is in his old age.
Your assumptions are so out of kilter they've come around and bit you in the rear.
I promote freedom probably far beyond anything you could ever hope for. Most conservatives are addicted to censorship, government controls and morality enforcement. Which makes their interest in Rand's sadomasochism in Atlas Shrugged even more interesting to me.
Sorry, I misunderstood you, Stan.
Wow Hatemail…love the moniker. Fits your hatefilled fascist rant. Yep that is what you are. Unless you have something enlightening and full of evil leftwing brainless swine poo to offer do not say a word. You have no debating skills, no intellectual capacity to make a coherant statement and yet here you are showing the world you are nothing but a leftwing bag man.
As I've mentioned before conservatives mainly give out of a fear of godly retribution which is spelled out clearly in the scriptures they read.
Many liberals give but most don't offer charity out of fear or heavenly concern. And many consider taxation to be something they give back to the community.
I dislike higher taxes so my form of charity takes on the shape of direct assistance of my own choosing to those in need- not to organizations. This makes my giving very hard to track.
I don't think she meant Robin Hood, whether he existed or not, I think she meant the idea of Robin Hood.
Schizoid_Mann,
I have a detailed response that is not being posted or at least the system is not refreshing properly to where I can view it.
Intense Debate is really starting to irritate me as I put much effort into the dialogue.
Anyway, just in case the response is lost to the nebula I did want to make you aware that something was created in response to your latest post but, alas, I cannot get it posted.
Hopefully this one even takes.
I was out for the afternoon and I must go back out for the evening or I would try to condense the information.
Best-
A C
Yes, the 'myth' of Robin Hood has been bent out of proportion over the ages. Interestingly enough as the Feudal structures were dissassembled in the west, it grew in the East. The Soviet state merely replaced the aristocracy with the Politburo, it was still very Feudal. It is modern western democracy that has its roots from the Urban Middle Ages that is the anti-Feudal system. Socialism as much as it pretends to get rid of class structures merely reinforces them (after all you HAVE to have Haves and Haves Not to make socialism seem valuable).
Che shirt on too tight? Or did it disintegrate in the laundry?
Ayn Rand never tried to excuse her selfishness. She was proud of it. Those who don't want you to devote your life to fulfilling your own selfish needs usually want you to devote your life to fulfilling theirs. It's the remuda who always cries "selfish" when the shark shakes him off his back.
I believe she disliked him because he was a Christian conservative, and she felt that religion had no place in politics. So you're wrong on all three guesses. Next time, try doing a little research before you pull something out of your ass and make a complete fool of yourself.
I thought so, you and SM had a good thread going. I couldn’t resist putting my 2cents worth in.
Well, I'll have to go back and read her books, but I don't recall her ever suggesting that we kill everyone in America and let millions starve. That would be a socialist utopia, and she was strongly opposed to socialism. But she did believe that those who refuse to work shouldn't be allowed to live parasitically off those who do. The misfortune of one person shouldn't be used as a lien on the fortune of others. And those who couldn't work should have to rely on charity, not government hand-outs.
Wow, that’s powerful to contemplate in America! A storms coming!
I had to say something AC. How about giving because it helps your fellow man. As a conservative when I give it’s because I want to not because it’s a one way ticket to heaven, it’s just good Karma, the right thing to do, you pick the line.
I know you don’t speak for all liberals, but if they believe that by giving money to the Federal Govt. is charity, what would happen if they decided to become uncharitable, it wouldn’t take long for the feds to be at your door brother, you’d have another thing coming.
That’s the best kind of charity!
Here's a bit that I happened to read at random when I picked up my girlfriend's copy and went a few pages past her bookmark to see what she was about to see.
The villian Dr. Ferris is speaking.
"You don't want some recalcitrant hack to come out with a treatise that will wreck our entire program, do you? If you breathe the word "censorhip" now, they'll all scream bloody murder. They're not ready for it — as yet. But if you leave the spirit alone and make it a simple material issue — not a matter of ideas, but just a matter of paper, ink and printing presses — you accomplish your purpose much more smoothly. You'll make sure nothing dangerous gets printed or heard — and nobody is going to fight over a material issue."
Change that last "material" into **monetary**, and here's Rand predicting — in 1957 — exactly how McCain-Feingold would be put over… when John "Money is not Speech" McCain was only 21.
That's not true. Ayn Rand's philosophy is far deeper and more encompassing than Nietzsche's. If anything, she is closer to Aristotle, whom she said was the greatest philosopher. Her philosophy is not subjective, as Nietzsche's was, and, in fact, perhaps her most brilliant work is in the fields of metaphysics and epistemology, followed closely by ethics and then politics. Her philosophy is a system that is built logically from the ground up. Her theory of concept formation is what made possible such a solid ethical and political system, since everything is grounded on that foundation.
.
I sense you have read neither Neitzshe nor Rand. Someone has provided your talking points for you. As to the comparison between Neitzsche and Rand, you might want to review this:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj-studies/cybe...
"Let's start with a crude measure: a count of the number of issues on which they agree and disagree.
Of the 68 issues, I count 51 disagreements and 17 agreements between Nietzsche and Rand. That's a disagreement/agreement ratio of 3 to 1".
I hope you are able to understand it.
Rick
One other question. Why would any rational person go by the name "hatemail"? It seems quite sophomoric.
Rick
Yes, I agree. I think she is not so much against Robin Hood, as she is against the way the legend has survived. Here is what she says:
"He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, has demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. … Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.” –Atlas Shrugged
Notice, she is referring to the "symbol of the idea", not to what in fact Robin Hood did.
The "rob from the rich and give to the poor" thing really got misinterpreted, but I'm not sure by whom.
Rand, among others, unfortunately…
An honest mistake.
Work for ACORN much?
Why do you insist on maligning a dead person? Get much out of that?
Wow, you really ARE HATEmail.
Wow, oneshot has turned into hatemail.
Oh ok, then I guess the latter must be true then. Sorry.
By the by dear fellow, do you ever say anything that's less then 10 sentences long?
It's nice that everyone has the freedom to give an opinion 'eh?
It's nice that everyone has the freedom to give an opinion 'eh?
What a load of crap. Put 2000 laborers in an empty field and tell me how many cars or washing machines they will produce. For something meaningful to be produced requires someone willing to risk capital to build factories, buy equipment, hire and train workers, buy raw materials, and develop a sales channel.
It would be helpful if you would write "Caution: Spoiler" and leave several lines blank before revealing major plot points. This is what reviewers do. Otherwise, you "spoil" the story for others.
You make good points, though.
And Ayn Rand was an atheist. She grew up in an atheist country. Her ideas show that, to a degree. But nobody in Christianity in the Bible was forced to give to support others. They helped the poor, by choice, and otherwise, were told that those who did not work did not eat.
7.50 an hour is still better then the 6 an hour minus union dues. And your Chinese labor crack shows a lack of knowledge about American Imports, Taxes, etc. Most labor is done overseas because its too expensive to do business here because of insane taxes and regulations.
As for China, what I'm about to teach you is also the answer to people who use "More and More imports are coming from overseas" as an example of Bush being an idiot. 16.9% of imports come from China, 15.7% from Canada, 10.6% Mexico. As you can see 26.3% of our imports come from our neighbors. 84.3% of our imports come from places other then China. While some of the merchandise you buy at Wal-Mart may be made in China, there is an equally good chance it was made some where else.
In short, go to your doctor, and get treated for Cranium-rectum disease.
7.50 an hour is still better then the 6 an hour minus union dues. And your Chinese labor crack shows a lack of knowledge about American Imports, Taxes, etc. Most labor is done overseas because its too expensive to do business here because of insane taxes and regulations.
As for China, what I'm about to teach you is also the answer to people who use "More and More imports are coming from overseas" as an example of Bush being an idiot. 16.9% of imports come from China, 15.7% from Canada, 10.6% Mexico. As you can see 26.3% of our imports come from our neighbors. 84.3% of our imports come from places other then China. While some of the merchandise you buy at Wal-Mart may be made in China, there is an equally good chance it was made some where else.
In short, go to your doctor, and get treated for Cranium-rectum disease.
The true irony is Matt's (comment #2) refusal to comment on the essence of Rand's thesis. The "looters of the mind" groupthink is most profoundly demonstrated by their refusal to make any clear statement of fact about ANY hypothesis put before them.
He demonstrates the personality of a looter in spades!!
BTW, I am just finishing Atlas Shrugged. Down to the last 20 pages or so. Never read it in school. Must have been too busy learning how to create things (engineering degree).
actually, he was more known as a b-list actor for his early career – which made most of it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18...
no matter what revisionism you can conjure up, he still avoided actually fighting in the war – call creating military propaganda films 'educational' all you want in his support only makes you look like the fool that would defend his non-political career, which would then include the very concept of perpetuating the idolization of a president who was for most of his life an actor… to who you now (presumably) revere..
i love conservative irony. its too easy to point out.
Keith, you beat me to it. Labor cannot produce unless Capital finances the production. Labor does not take risk, Capital does thus it is what deserves to b e rewarded.
If the UAW ever started an auto company, they would attempt to de-unionize themselves…..
Animal Farm is perhaps even more applicable to our present situation than Atlas Shrugged. I would not assume Rand wanted a slave class. She just wanted a better class of man. Don't we all?
you bet!
don't underestimate this woman because of her recent fare…
once again- she's a far more substantial person than you might think; world officials have been knocked out by both her knowledge and preparation. We are not fans. Still, she wants to bring it to screen- that's a great insight to her. One imagines she'll do fine…
once again- she's a far more substantial person than you might think; world officials have been knocked out by both her knowledge and preparation. We are not fans. Still, she wants to bring it to screen- that's a great insight to her. One imagines she'll do fine…
she is controversial, but we humbly disagree with your take.
Bull. Cashiers PRE-Walmart averaged $17.50. Now even the Costco's are pushing the $7.50 line.
Got to race to the bottom after all!
Clearly you never even READ "Beyond Good and Evil".
If you had, you'd grasp the real depth of a REAL philosopher.
"The struggle for freedom must be fought, not only without fear, but without hope".
Her "theory" is a complete fraud, claiming that 'every man for himself' is an ethic, when it is, in point of fact, the purest form of savagery.
Try "Toward a New Philosophy" and "Beyond Good and Evil".
Follow that up with "The decline and fall of the Roman empire".
Then " The house on Garibaldi street".
That was my third year reading list… in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!!!
What a load of bull.
Put 2 trillion dollars into speculative housing.
Produce nothing but profits.
Watch as the economy tanks.
THAT IS CAPITALISM at work…Producing nothing but money.
They ARE smarter, as Germany and Sweden prove so well.
Socialism WORKS, as in longer lives, healthier people, and in Germany's case, the highest value of exports IN THE WORLD!
Would be a good idea if you knew what Fascism is.
Try reading something from the LEFT side of the aisle for once.
Same old crap.
The INHERITANCE CLASS is a Malum Et Se.
The very existence of such is a death knell for any economy.
Wow, "Tank" must describe the thing atop your neck.
Could you, just once, address the issue?
"All for me" isn't a philosophy.
It's the guidepost for sociopathy.
Actually, I'm maligning the nitwits who still follow the fraud.
Nothing like "WMD" though, right Tank?
May I suggest you look at the average life span of the SOCIALIST Germans and compare that to Americans?
If you do, Carville will start sounding MUCH TOO CONSERVANAZI for you.
Here, read what ACTUAL philosopher's say about Rand.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/footnoted/index.php?id...
Steve Gimbel, an associate professor of philosophy at Gettysburg College, thinking.
"You see, when you get on an airplane for a cross-country flight as a philosopher, you would much rather be seated next to the person who suffers from intense airsickness the entire way than the white guy who turns and says, 'Oh, I'm kind of a philosopher, too. I LOVE Ayn Rand.'"
"If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny," Gimbel writes, "what's left are the writings of Ayn Rand."
"If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny," Gimbel writes, "what's left are the writings of Ayn Rand."
Steve Gimbel, an associate professor of philosophy at Gettysburg College
Real philosophers actually read
I am directly interested in preventing an increase in centralization of wealth into a caste or class of uber-masters, who do no work, create no product, and whose contribution to society is limited entirely to destroying those persons who are productive (they being the labor which adds value), which is the inevitable outcome of successful capitalism.
Indeed, rewarding capital for merely HAVING capital is the entire purpose of Capitalism, and Rand GLORIFIED this destruction of the productive portion.
Like Rand, you 'sense' things which are not true, comment on your 'sense' and then fail even to evaluate your 'sense' correctly.
There is nothing in Rand which Neitzsche did not comment upon, and in no case did Rand demonstrate even the application of unique invention in her 'philosophy'. One must wonder how, or for that matter, why, so many white men of privilege think this an 'informed' novelist.
No wonder she would not publish in peer reviewed journals.
Like Rand, you 'sense' things which are not true, comment on your 'sense' and then fail even to evaluate your 'sense' correctly.
There is nothing in Rand which Neitzsche did not comment upon, and in no case did Rand demonstrate even the application of unique invention in her 'philosophy'. One must wonder how, or for that matter, why, so many white men of privilege think this an 'informed' novelist.
No wonder she would not publish in peer reviewed journals.
It keeps the morons busy attempting to extract meaningful information on my identity.
Good! Anyone who considers Rand, who never published in a peer reviewed formal journal of philosophy, to be a philosopher, SHOULD be humble!!
Right. I'm a class centered statist dedicated to turning the masses into willing slaves…oh, that's right. OBJECTIVISM has this as a goal, to make "work units" instead of people>
Learn to read. Figure out the meaning of words like Fascist before you try to use them.
Morons need to learn, and certainly, YOU need to learn even more than most
Right. I'm a class centered statist dedicated to turning the masses into willing slaves…oh, that's right. OBJECTIVISM has this as a goal, to make "work units" instead of people>
Learn to read. Figure out the meaning of words like Fascist before you try to use them.
Morons need to learn, and certainly, YOU need to learn even more than most
I do know what fascism is, which isn't what leftists think it is, ie: anything they don't like.
And I real plenty from the left side of the aisle, it's always a good tactic to know your enemy.
I do know what fascism is, which isn't what leftists think it is, ie: anything they don't like.
And I real plenty from the left side of the aisle, it's always a good tactic to know your enemy.
Right you are, Tai.
[...] is about, Big Hollywood’s Mike Baron has a post that gives you the flavor of the novel: Why ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Matters. Noting that sales of the book have increased [...]
Great post, and good to see all the discussion in the comments. You've got people thinking, and that's a good thing. I have serious doubts about any Hollywood production of Atlas Shrugged being even remotely true to the novel, though. You can't write convincingly about what you don't understand, and judging from the years of stereotypical business villains and well-intentioned, altruistic heroes, Hollywood writers and studios haven't got a clue to the philosophy underlying Atlas.
And WHO is this Gimbel? Nobody that's who. A leftist self proclaimed philosopher, MAYBE.
Riiiight. Everybody's entitled to an opinion and that's yours. Why waste your time trying to disprove the writings of a fraud? Get much out of that?
Ohhh I get it now, you HAVE to brag on yourself because no one else does. There there run back to your nice little therapist and everything will be alright.
I rather doubt it.
Well it's starting to look like you have the market cornered on sociopathy.
Oh come on, why would you want to lead someone to a bunch of written lies by crybabies and whiners. Sheesh.
No it really doesn't. You would not like it if you had to live amonst it. Just because a nation has longer living, healthier people doesn't mean that it's because they are living in socialism. I have several German friends and they have NOTHING good to say about socialized medicine. I also have British friends who say the same thing there. They are NOT happy with socialism at all. Canada, the same thing. My friends there tell me there is about a 3 month wait time for anything serious pertaining to medical treatment.
Wow, you ARE full of crap aren't you. I have a sister in law who works at costco, her starting wage was 11.00 an hour as a CASHIER. After 2 years she was up to 14.50 or something close, I don't know what she's making now since she's been there about five years or so. I also have a brother who works at Wal Mart and he makes way over 7.50 so get your facts straight before you come in spouting B.S.
I wonder how much hatemail's puppetmasters pay him to regurgitate their talking points, in his official capacity as a troll? If you think it's so bad here, hatemail, why don't you go somewhere else? Have an answer to that, hatemail? One of your own, not what your handlers instruct you to say. If I were this unhappy I'd move. Unfortunately, as much as the left is screwing up the USA, it's stll the best country on earth. Anti-capitalist idiots like hatemail haven't figured out where the jobs come from, and that companies do not exist to provide jobs and health care to the sick, lame and lazy of society.
Clearly hatemail, you are one of Cliff's Notes primary sources of income. Unless of course you stole your copies. Your comments would look great on a bumper sticker. Or is that where you got them?
hatemail: Some words of wisdom for you to consider.
"It is better to sit quietly and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
You aren't a fascist, hatemail. You are a tool, a useful idiot as it were, OF fascism. You clearly aren't intelligent enough to be an actual fascist, nor do you have the work ethic needed to acquire the skills to become a fascist. Thus, you are a tool. You willingly spout gibberish dictated by your rulers, eliminating any need for you to attempt critical or rational thought. Too much strain on you little brain. Maybe your mommy will make you milk and cookies before she reads you your bedtime story and tucks you in.
"I am directly interested in preventing an increase in centralization of wealth into a caste or class of uber-masters, who do no work, create no product, and whose contribution to society is limited entirely to destroying those persons who are productive"
hatemail: you are directing your wrath at the government, not capitalism. You pinhead. You just destroyed your entire 'argument', such as it is. Congratulations on your epiphany. Too bad the Soviet Union is no longer-you'd be a perfect addition to that long dead 'society'.
Now do your part for the environment and hold your breath for a very long time, thereby reducing your carbon footprint and saving the planet. You certainly are a waste of oxygen. And skin. And food.
I 'read' the book (actually, *listened* to the unabridged audiobook) last year, and I like the idea of Jolie as Dagny. Can't think of anyone better suited to the role (as long as they don't "glam" her up). For Rearden, I like Simon Baker. And I think Aaron Eckhart would make a great John Galt. Paul Giamatti as Jim Taggart…?
I suspect that Hollywood would not mess around with this one too much if they did indeed make it. The left already hates it, so the last thing you'd want to do is alienate its fans…
Troll. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act? Largely ignored by the federal government until Clinton revived it using Janet Reno and the Justice Department to coerce the lending industry into making the CRA even more pervavise. Ever heard of Fannie and Freddie? The millions and millions of dollars stolen in bonuses, by cooking the books, by Franklin Raines, Rahm Emmanuel, Jamie Gorelick and countless other democrats? Ever heard of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, or the countless other democrats funded by Fannie and Freddie?
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
I strongly encourage you to engage your brain (regardless of how feeble it is) before putting your pie-hole in gear.
You are clearly a devoted student of bumper stickers. You'd do yourself and your fellow trolls a huge favor by sticking to the tried and true, trite and stupid, content of those stickers. When you venture into informed company, your only success is making a fool of yourself. An easy task, especially for the intellectually lazy, which you clearly are. Now go see if mommy will drive you to the library. They have these things called 'books' there. Maybe she'll teach you to read or read one to you while your work on your coloring books.
Agile? Certainly not with regard to your obviously overblown sense of your own superiority. Lot's of words you have there cyborg. Pity none of them are accurate or sensible. Obviously you are the product of public "education". I do hope you didn't waste any of your financial resources on a college "education" as it certainly was a poor investment. Your inability to apply rational thinking and analysis is a sad thing indeed. Thankfully there are some truly productive people willing to pay their taxes to support the dolts among us…do tell, you're an 'educator' aren't you? You are certainly some species of parasite.
Maybe Dagny is actually a Kennedy. Or related to John Kerry. Perhaps a large portion of the Galts in contemporary society run successful private businesses that they built themselves through hard work, risk and intelligence. These companies are also getting screwed by the likes of your mental puppet masters. Thankfully for you stupidity isn't taxable. Or illegal.
You sound like what I refer to as an 'intellectual': someone who believes the most preposterous lies and then prides himself on his sophisitication. Educated far beyond your intelligence.
But when your nanny read "Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams From My Father" to you I'll bet you thought they were the greatest novels ever written. Oh. They aren't novels? Well perhaps they aren't. They are certainly fiction. Not that one of your mental capacity could discern the difference.
Sucking on exhaust pipes and bongs is hazardous to your mental health. To say nothing of your lips.
Sounds to me that the fairy tale Snertly lives its life by is The Communist Manifesto. Socialism has worked SO well wherever and whenever it has been tried. I mean so many successful socialist/communist societies are doing so well!
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
A. Einstein
Where ya been hatemail? We miss you! Where did our favorite lightweight troll wander off to? Did you see something shiny and your ADD kick in? Off your meds again? Maybe mommy will make you some nice warm milk to help you go sleepy.
I thought its name was ONESNOT! oneshot is about the same.
Not at all. You are a self centered, over-indulged mental midget far more impressed with his mental 'prowess' than most. A narcissist in the classic Obama mode.
A dimwit. You should go into 'journalism'.
Not at all. You are a self centered, over-indulged mental midget far more impressed with his mental 'prowess' than most. A narcissist in the classic Obama mode.
A dimwit. You should go into 'journalism'.
humility is a good thing, You should give it a try sometime…
"White guy"? Clearly that "philosopher" is a postmodernist and racist. His insinuation is “white is evil", which is an evil insinuation.
News flash … "actual philosophers", as you call them, are the people who have been destroying the world. This is one of her points. Modern philosophy has poisoned the world with anti-science, anti-capitalism, and altruism. Hegel and Marx? see the Soviet Union. Schopenhauer? see Nazi Germany. And, to be sure, there are lots of "actual philosophers" who do value her work. I'm always amused by you lot who value the works of some hacks like Wittgenstein or, worse, postmodernists, and then belittle Ayn Rand. It's beyond absurd.
But, let me be more pointed here. I'll argue with you mano a mano Ayn Rand's actual philosophy, something I doubt you have the first clue about.
Communism and Socialism are not "inherently selfish". It's exactly the opposite. Marx was a pure altruist, promoting the Hegelian and Kantian philosophies. Altruism is denial of the self. Collectivism is the political form of altruism, since others are better than the self, and we must bow down to them. This is how a slave state is produced.
Capitalism is about the pursuit of happiness. It's about egoism and it has resulted in unprecedented wealth and prosperity for all.
Ayn Rand wrote "The Virtue of Selfishness", where she gets people to rethink that idea, and shows how it is has been wrongly vilified. Rational egoism is good. A person has the right to his happiness and life, and those who would deny it are the ones who are evil. Rational self-interest leads to life and benevolence on earth. This is something I can show with time and space, but I'll leave it at that. Better yet, read Ayn Rand.
Also, on the Industrial revolution, I recommend Andrew Bernstein's "The Capitalist Manifesto". The Industrial Revolution (IR) was a huge step out of poverty, extreme poverty.
That's just ridiculous. She upheld America as the greatest country in history and the only moral country in its founding principles. She believed in individual rights as per John Locke's philosophy and the Declaration of Independence, and she, in fact, improved the strength of the defense for these rigths.
You have preconceived notions that you have never questioned. The adjectives "despotic" and "pathological" are yours arbitrarily and thoughtless added on. I’m neither of those and I’m an egoist. A man has the right to his life. This is an egoistic view. If you do not believe that a man has the right to his life, then you are the one who is despotic and wants to control others.
Egoism is the missing element that is necessary to the defense of freedom and capitalism. It is the fundamental under girding that can defend a man’s right to his life, and it is supremely moral, because it supports life on earth. It has everything to offer the “American family” and all individuals. Life and freedom are, after all, all that we have.
I also argue that egoism is what makes benevolence possible. I value others from an egoistic stand point. I see lots of good in people who leave me free and I admire those who work to achieve. Altruism means contempt for people.
Sort of like how Christians shouldn't be threatened by Communism, righhhhtttttttttt?
Have you read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? Ever read any of Dicken's books?
"Rational self-interest leads to life and benevolence on earth." Really? REALLY? Funny, when I see how well pure capitalism has worked for the Global South, it looks to me like unending violence, misery, and crushing poverty.
I am not advocating for a communist society. I think we should have a mixed economy, because, that is what has worked out for us.
Also, stop calling it rational egoism, call it for what it is: Opportunism, Selfishness, Lack of empathy for your fellow man.
Kind of like how Marx put forth the ideals on what an altruistic society should project? Have you noticed that neither of their ideas were based on historical evidence, or human nature?
…and you call me the fool.
No, I would say that he completely understands them, and he sees them for what they really are.
Tell me, where is Rand's place int he world for crippled people? They are of no use to anyone, so shouldn't they starve?
Oh wait, she would have just had them aborted. My bad.
Really? Altruism means contempt for people? How come altruistic people help others so much then?
I thought contempt for people was spitting on the homeless, and robbing someone blind in the name of your personal self-interest.
Listen, I addressed your points directly. You said "communism and socialism" are based on egoism. This is 180 degrees wrong. So wrong, it's not funny. The Soviet Union was driven by altruism to the nth degree.
Yes, I've read Dickens. I do not agree, nor am I impressed with his evaluations of capitalism and nor should you be.
There is not "pure capitalism" in the "global south". South America is very left wing as a rule. America has been, historically, the most capitalist, and that was in the 1800s. In that time it grew to be the economic power house of the world, with undreamed of wealth.
When you say "Really REALLY?" I say, yes, REALLY IN SPADES! Those who would deny a man his self, his right to pursue his own happiness are not the friends of mankind. You are telling me and everyone else, in effect, screw you, your little life is nothing. Live for others, who are then supposed to do the same thing, btw. So everyone denies themselves and the end result in misery and suffering and death.
Listen, I addressed your points directly. You said "communism and socialism" are based on egoism. This is 180 degrees wrong. So wrong, it's not funny. The Soviet Union was driven by altruism to the nth degree.
Yes, I've read Dickens. I do not agree, nor am I impressed with his evaluations of capitalism and nor should you be.
There is not "pure capitalism" in the "global south". South America is very left wing as a rule. America has been, historically, the most capitalist, and that was in the 1800s. In that time it grew to be the economic power house of the world, with undreamed of wealth.
When you say "Really REALLY?" I say, yes, REALLY IN SPADES! Those who would deny a man his self, his right to pursue his own happiness are not the friends of mankind. You are telling me and everyone else, in effect, screw you, your little life is nothing. Live for others, who are then supposed to do the same thing, btw. So everyone denies themselves and the end result in misery and suffering and death.
Altruistic people create slave states, which rob people of their wealth, spirit and lives on a totalitarian scale. The Soviet Union and N. Korea, remember?
Don't confuse benevolence with altruism. Altruism means "selfless concern for others". Notice the word "selflessness" in there. It doesn't say "concern for others", after all. Why is the word "selfless" there? Somebody included it and thought it was vital. It is the focus on selflessness that is the problem with altruism, because altruism is all about self-denial, not "helping others."
The contempt for people is built right into the definition. You are vial if you are for your self. You are good if you deny yourself, and "serve others", who are also supposed to deny themselves. Notice, this is inherently an anti-value system. Men are not to seek values for their own lives.
If I help someone, because I value them, then that is not altruism, and thus not "good" by that code. Notice that?
what a great republican you'll be; 25% revisionist history, 75% off tangent ad hominem, nice work.
Just because you're proud of it, doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Ms Rand's method of excusing her selfishness was to attempt to convince the world of the "rightness" of selfishness. Everyone has some sense of self-interest, but they should also have a sense of operating within a larger society. Sometimes it's appropriate to set aside self-interest in the pursuit, or support, of loftier goals whether they be of family or faith, country or cause. Rand's heroes tend to forget that they exist within a larger tapestry.
If John Galt wants to take his ball and go home, it's ok, someone else will be along to play shortly.
It will change many more peoples lives in the very near future. With our country looking remarkably like the one in Atlas Shrugged, people will start taking notice.
I think I'm going to take a lesson from your father and start picking up old paperbacks and handing them out.
In reading Rand, there are 2 critical components to deal with: the art and the philosophy. Taking short cuts with either one will not pay you the marvelous dividends the work is capable of and that you should deserve. Number one, as a work of classic literature, it offers a most heroic vision of mankind's potential. This is based on an aesthetic philosophy of romantic realism. Most modernist or post modern deconstructionists hate this. It is to them, way too idealistic (read impractical and simplistic). It is way too heroic and benevolent, celebrating a vision of the way life could be and should be. To them, this is childish rubbish. It doesn't glorify all the struggles of conflicted, compromised, and corrupted antiheros. (See Tobias Woffe's Old School for a recent example.)
Number two, as fictional works based on a concise philosophy, Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are not going to make perfect sense without developing a rational and objective view of philosophy and the critical thinking skills that go with that. That is where the real battle exists. At some point, every individual human being needs to take a stand about the most fundamental concepts. There are 3 simple questions you have to answer correctly: What is? How do you know what is? So What? Please let me know if you'd like to discuss this further.
Also, please do not skip Galt's speech. Read it once now, then again, however much later, after tackling some of the philosophy behind it. Incidentally, politics and economics are certainly important, but they are not the foundation of, or substitute for, really good philosophy.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Why ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Matters bighollywood.breitbart.com/mbaron/2009/03/26/why-atlas-shrugged-matters – view page – cached When I mentioned to friends I was reading Atlas Shrugged their response was uniform: “Oh that. I read it in college but now I have moved on to adult subjects.” These were liberal friends, you understand, and I couldn’t help but wonder why they would want to discourage me from reading a literary classic that is selling better now than at any time in its history. In fact, it has recently moved up to become Amazon’s 37th best-selling novel. — From the page [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.