Atlas Shrugged

robindch

For those not familiar with it, it's a large table-thumper of a book, written by a Russian emigrée to the USA named Ayn Rand who, through that book and others, expounded a philosophy she called Objectivism, something which she claimed was entirely rational. The book is hugely popular in the USA, and apart from the bible, I gather it's the only book which all the members of the US Congress have claimed to have read (or tried to). Thankfully, the book and Rand are relatively unknown in Europe.

I've read perhaps the first 150 pages a few years back and could not continue. It's atrociously badly written, even allowing for the fact that English was not Rand's native language. The following quote describes my own opinion of it accurately:

Some Guy wrote:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. (comment from "Plugging the Gulf leak with works of Ayn Rand)

Rand had many followers, one of whom was Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve and it's hard not to view much of his broad policy of "the market comes first" as an acting out of the general social autism that characterizes Rand's writings.

Anyhow, have anybody read this book and found it worthwhile?

Hell, forget about getting to the end. Has anybody even got past page 20 without losing the will to live?

pH

robindch wrote: »

Hell, forget about getting to the end. Has anybody even got past page 20 without losing the will to live?

I finished Bioshock on the Xbox, not sure that counts though!

I ordered it online out of curiosity a while back. it never arrived and i never chased it up. maybe the universe was trying to protect me:D still curious to read it though.

iUseVi

I did read it all, it took a while I have to admit. I was a teenage at the time and was quite taken with the ideas in it, but my views on it have swung almost to the other extreme. Rand's view on charity in particular disturb me a great deal. Her "philosophy" if it can be called would only work in an ideal world. Looking after only oneself and one's own interests is a nice idea in principle, but it's too heartless for me I'm afraid. She seemed to think that all men (she would never say women) are demi-god like and can do as they wish. Whilst this is somewhat inspiring, the cold truth is that some people have unfortunate disadvantages that are not their fault (poverty, disabilities, etc). She would cast these people aside.

Agree about the terrible, terrible writing, you have only to read the first few pages to experience this.

Anyway bit of a ramble, I'm afraid my writing is worse than hers; if you made any sense of that you are a genius.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

iUseVi

I was waiting for you donegalfella, suprised to see you hadn't got here sooner.

I agree with your last sentence or two: "Rand probably would have seen Jesus Christ as a contemptible man spreading pernicious ideas, because his teachings constantly extol an ethos of self-sacrifice and selflessness. For her, selfishness and self-preservation were good things."

I totally think people should hold their heads high with pride as they walk down the high street, and shouldn't shun the opportunities to get in front of the queue in life. But the problem I have is when the needy and helpless don't get helped.

In the book Rand's antagonists had their own businesses etc. which they managed poorly and wasted. But while these are people who can help themselves if they wanted to, there are many many in our world who cannot feed themselves, and Rand was quite disparaging about such. Although these comments were made mostly outside of her most well known books I think.

Also, about the private sector: "the productive, wealth-generating capacity of the private sector"; it was unregulated private banks that got us into the last depression. No regulation makes for greedy people.

fontanalis

robindch wrote: »

For those not familiar with it, it's a large table-thumper of a book, written by a Russian emigrée to the USA named Ayn Rand who, through that book and others, expounded a philosophy she called Objectivism, something which she claimed was entirely rational. The book is hugely popular in the USA, and apart from the bible, I gather it's the only book which all the members of the US Congress have claimed to have read (or tried to). Thankfully, the book and Rand are relatively unknown in Europe.

I've read perhaps the first 150 pages a few years back and could not continue. It's atrociously badly written, even allowing for the fact that English was not Rand's native language. The following quote describes my own opinion of it accurately:Rand had many followers, one of whom was Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve and it's hard not to view much of his broad policy of "the market comes first" as an acting out of the general social autism that characterizes Rand's writings.

Anyhow, have anybody read this book and found it worthwhile?

Hell, forget about getting to the end. Has anybody even got past page 20 without losing the will to live?

Strange, as Rand was an atheist and they love their look at me christianity.

mikhail

iUseVi wrote: »

...She seemed to think that all men (she would never say women) are demi-god like and can do as they wish. Whilst this is somewhat inspiring, the cold truth is that some people have unfortunate disadvantages that are not their fault (poverty, disabilities, etc). She would cast these people aside...

For me, that seems to explain its popularity in the US. That sort of opinion is rife there - just look at their attitudes towards public healthcare.

Coriolanus

I read it as a teenager.
My abiding recollection though is that she/the book, conveyed a sense of the dignity of common work. I think it was

Galt

who worked in the train tunnels, and through that there were a few admittedly throw away character introduced who came out looking a lot better, despite lack of education, blue collar work etc, than some of the antagonists of the book

Dartys brother, the clergy members etc.

Might need to read it again, but that's the impression I was left with, and one I certainly hold dear to today.

One thing I do know though, she'd have been spitting mad to see banks that failed in a supposedly free market, getting bailed out. What we call the free market today is a far cry from what it was when she was writing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Robindch, you clearly dislike anything related to libertarianism and this potshot of a thread exemplifies that. Snide insults aside, tell me, why does this brand of economics and philosophy scare you so much? You even admit your feelings about a book which you have read less than twenty percent of amount to nothing more than base generalisations about those who hold it in high regard. Your idea of "social autism" and your quote above clearly demonstrates your outright refusal to engage Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead or any of Rand's nonfiction writing on even the most basic level. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said this to you before. So you have made your mind up apriori; why do you feel the need to shout about it?

I'm not attacking you on behalf of an ideology; I simply like reading books and I thought this was a good one. Nothing annoys me more than pointless, politically motivated and uneducated criticisms about a book which someone has barely even read.

Valmont

pH wrote: »

I finished Bioshock on the Xbox, not sure that counts though!

I think the authors of bioshock were heavily influenced by Atlas Shrugged. I must admit the story of bioshock was crafted much better than that of Atlas Shrugged!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Mad Hatter

Haven't read it, but I intend to some day, as so many libertarians say "read Atlas Shrugged" instead of making an argument. That said, I'm so sick of political arguments at this stage that I may not bother.

iUseVi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah I would have thanked that comment for sure.

strobe

I've actually never read it, bought it once and borrowed it twice but the universe alligned itself so that I never opened the front cover on all three occasions. Although I have on two or three occasions had variations of the sentence "why don't you fukk off and go back to reading Atlas Shrugged" thrown at me as (I presume) some kind of insult. So going on that I can guess that it probably aligns with some of my beliefs. Will pick it up in the library at the weekend. Fourth time lucky hopefully.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, have anybody read this book and found it worthwhile?

I played BioShock? Does that count? :P

[EDIT] Wow, word for word with pH .. I must be psychic[/EDIT]

Zombrex

Valmont wrote: »

Robindch, you clearly dislike anything related to libertarianism and this potshot of a thread exemplifies that. Snide insults aside, tell me, why does this brand of economics and philosophy scare you so much?

Isn't that obvious?

It makes no provision beyond the rather basic notion of charity, for those who for what ever reason do not excel or do not find themselves in a position to self sustain themselves.

This is the greatest issue I would have with Objectivism and Libertarianism. Like Communism it largely brushes over the question "Ok, what happens if everything doesn't work as planned"

I appreciate the argument some put forward that this isn't really the point, that it is a right even if it leads to undesirable outcomes, but really I think that is a weak argument.

Some what more specifically Objectivism throws out 1.5 million years of evolutionary instinct, and I think it is of little surprise that Rand herself ended up isolated and depressed in the later years of her life. We as a species are not designed to think in Objectivistic terms. It makes us unhappy and stressful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Wicknight wrote: »

I
Some what more specifically Objectivism throws out 1.5 million years of evolutionary instinct

What evolutionary instinct are you talking about?

Dades

This sounds like the type of read I would have read as a teenager. But given that I didn't, I'm unlikely to entertain reading it for another 20 years.

With two kids I read for pleasure.

Liking this thread, though. Feisty!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

Robindch, you clearly dislike anything related to libertarianism and this potshot of a thread exemplifies that. Snide insults aside, tell me, why does this brand of economics and philosophy scare you so much?

<grin>

Rand and her writings don't "scare" me any more than the warblings of L Ron Hubbard.

On the contrary, I dislike Rand and what she said, because, as Wicknight implied, it's a selfish philosophy which glorifies self-promotion at the expense of the public good. As she said herself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

Ayn Rand wrote:

I am challenging the moral code of altruism, the precept that man's moral duty is to live for others.

Given Rand's background as one of the dispossessed jewish Sankt Petersbourgeoisie and growing up in the febrile atmosphere of early 20th Century St Pete, this dim view of civil society is not unexpected. In fact, her entire Objectivist movement appears -- as far as I can see -- to be an extended exercise in condemning a generalized society that could have helped her and her family, but did not.

Us humans are intensely social animals and we're simply not designed to behave as Rand wants us to. Nor indeed, could our society function if we did.

For example, in a Randian world, how long would we have to wait for BP to plug the hole in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico?

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On the contrary, when it comes to complying with the government's business regulations, Ireland is one of the easiest and cheapest countries in the world to operate in:

http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreEconomies/?economyid=93

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep, designed by evolution to be social

What other species has invented beer?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I must say, I never expected to have to defend the proposition that humans are social

Are you seriously saying that humans are non-social, and that we're better off -- for however you choose to define "better" -- not co-operating with each other for our mutual benefit?

The Mad Hatter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would consider myself to be a fairly extreme case of an introvert - I'm the only person in my social circle who has striven to live alone - but I still think of myself as a social animal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fontanalis

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Survival of the fittest is a misnomer. Why aren't there Sabre Tooth tigers, Megalodons, Short Faced Bears still around; they were as fit as any creature. Empathy is a human trait which helped the species survive.
I understand Rand being anti "big government" coming from the background she came from but one extreme doesn't deserve another.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The current system of government (social democracy) assumes things won't work as planned from time to time which is why the systems are not dependent on everyone doing what they are supposed to do, as a system like Libertarianism is (see no single mothers below)

We do not go without a government just because the current government aren't good at governing. We don't go without health care because the head of the HSE quits. We do not go without a police force because the current police commissioner decides he would rather be a painter.

In the worse cases (which as far as I know never happened here but have happend in other countries) the army is brought in to provide services if the government company is unwilling or unable.

Throughout this there is the expectation that these services exist even if the systems that provide them fail.

With Libertarianism and Objectivizm this is missing. It requires that everyone decides to fund charities in a coherent fashion to deal with the vast social problems humans natural generate. Or simply abandon people to their fates.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but we also have none of the social problems we had 50 or 100 years ago. If you get sick there is a hospital provided for you. It may not work perfectly, in fact it probably won't. But it is there as is the expectation that it is your right and it should work and if it doesn't someone isn't doing there job properly.

I'm not arguing the current system is perfect. I'm arguing that under a Libertarian system it would be much much much worse.

donegalfella wrote: »

We have a bloated, inefficient, and enormously costly public sector.

And as such we don't have all the social issues that countries without that have or would have.

You can argue that while Libertarianism wouldn't stop that it still doesn't mean I've the right to make you pay taxes. But there is no argument for how Libertarianism solves these social problems, other than the so fuzzy it is irrelevant notion that people may, if they choose, decide to fund charities to tackle all the current social issues that the government currently handles.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But that is the point. They wouldn't be economically productive. The long term employed are unemployed because they have mental or social issues that prevent them for working.

How are they dealt with in the Libertarian system? Are they simply dismissed as lazy? Do we let the rot because no one has the right to take from one to give to another (ie taxes)?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And if a poor uneducated woman gets pregnant in the Libertarian utopia what happens do her?

Do would that just never happen? That seems as ridiculously naive as anything the Communists ever came up with.

Zombrex

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because it goes against our instincts that have evolved to favor community and altruism (which in an evolutionary context is never truly selfless).

Which is probably why people like Rand end up being miserable depressed paranoid loners. Rand ended up isolating herself from even her closes friends.

There is not a whole lot of reason to not dismiss objectivism as simply the idea of a damaged mind divorced from normal human interactions.

Valmont

Wicknight wrote: »

Because it goes against our instincts state that have evolved to favor community and altruism (which in an evolutionary context is never truly selfless).

Well then, why do we need the state to point a gun at our heads and forcibly expropriate our wealth for "altruistic" projects? If, as you say yourself, we have evolved to favour community and altruism, why not just let people get on with it voluntarily?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Woow_Aqualung

Bought Atlas Shrugged today. Looking at the size of the book, I'm glad I have a whole summer (and then TY) to read it.
My personal philosophy is that either pure Capitalism or pure Marksisim will work, but that half and half Socialism is flawed as it relies on economic competitiveness between companies (to gain tax), yet kills that competitiveness by owning companies itself which are hard to compete with.

iUseVi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolute bullcrap tbh. Anyone who thinks a child born today in Ireland is worse off than one born 50 years ago has a very short memory indeed.

Personally I quite like how things are now, but I'm acutely aware that I'm in a minority there. Not to say there isn't room for improvement, but I think a move towards socialism is a move forwards and not backwards.

Oh and I also think the tax system should be more like in Denmark and Sweden where the base rate is 60% or something.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

iUseVi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rapes certainly were a feature, it's just they were covered up. As were wife-beatings and child rape by clergymen. But I'll give you shootings! There certainly are more of them now.

But if you focus on areas other than crime for a second, there are many things which are much better now. Life expectancy for a start. Standard of living. The fact that 99% of the populace has more than adequate food, clothing and housing. Literacy.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well yes, to get Nordic-style services would be quite a feat just atm, the whole structure of government and also the culture would have to change. But I can dream.

Woow_Aqualung

iUseVi wrote: »

Not to say there isn't room for improvement, but I think a move towards socialism is a move forwards and not backwards

iUseVi wrote: »

Oh and I also think the tax system should be more like in Denmark and Sweden where the base rate is 60% or something.

So your saying that at a time when the country is financialy crippled, and unemployment is high, you say we should increase the ammount people who are unemployed are receving in benefits while increasing the tax on those who actually work? This high tax rate works in Denmark and Sweden because the sevices they recieve for the tax, such as Health care, are brilliant. If you get sick in Ireland and you haven't got a Health Card (i.e. your working and paying tax for the Health care of those who have Health Cards) and you don't pay through the nose for Health insurence, there is a good chance you will die.

The Mad Hatter

Woow_Aqualung wrote: »

So your saying that at a time when the country is financialy crippled, and unemployment is high, you say we should increase the ammount people who are unemployed are receving in benefits while increasing the tax on those who actually work? This high tax rate works in Denmark and Sweden because the sevices they recieve for the tax, such as Health care, are brilliant. If you get sick in Ireland and you haven't got a Health Card (i.e. your working and paying tax for the Health care of those who have Health Cards) and you don't pay through the nose for Health insurence, there is a good chance you will die.

Paying through the nose for health insurance? At least in our heavily-regulated health insurance market, people can afford their own health insurance. The annual cost of my insurance is about €2k less than the average American (taking the example of a virtually unregulated market) pays per month.

Incidentally "you're," not "your."

Woow_Aqualung

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Incidentally "you're," not "your."

Well if yer going to be petty.

Woow_Aqualung

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Paying through the nose for health insurance? At least in our heavily-regulated health insurance market, people can afford their own health insurance. The annual cost of my insurance is about €2k less than the average American (taking the example of a virtually unregulated market) pays per month.

Incidentally "you're," not "your."

And Americans are covered for dental treatment, such as braces.

And plus my arguement isn't against health insurence. I just think it's unfair that people have to pay for Health care through taxes, and then have pay insurence to receive Health care. Either one or the other. Like I said previously, Marksism or Capitalisim, but not the luke-warm in between.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

iUseVi

Woow_Aqualung wrote: »

So your saying that at a time when the country is financialy crippled, and unemployment is high, you say we should increase the ammount people who are unemployed are receving in benefits while increasing the tax on those who actually work? This high tax rate works in Denmark and Sweden because the sevices they recieve for the tax, such as Health care, are brilliant. If you get sick in Ireland and you haven't got a Health Card (i.e. your working and paying tax for the Health care of those who have Health Cards) and you don't pay through the nose for Health insurence, there is a good chance you will die.

You just skipped my last sentence where I said "Well yes, to get Nordic-style services would be quite a feat just atm, the whole structure of government and also the culture would have to change. But I can dream."

So your post was unnecessary really if you had read that.

Woow_Aqualung

You posted that as I was typing. I'm not too fast with the keyboard. I do apologise, I should have Previewed my post before hand.