I finally read it.

[cska80]

Ok I lied. I didn't read it. I've finally read Atlas Shrugged audio book. I got tired of people saying I should and now I see why. I assume 95% of this forum has read it in the past, but I just had to say how much more relevant it seems to be while I'm listening to it during the times we're in now. It feels as if I'm listening to news reports or politcal pundits of today. I don't think it would have had the same affect on me if I had listened to it years and years ago.

[Bruno]

You're not alone.

I haven't read it yet, but ordered and received it last week. I have a few more books to finish before tackling this bohemoth. The size of the book is a little intimdating, even after finishing The Creature From Jekyll Island recently (2/3 the pages, and much larger print).

I do really look forward to it, though, and read some summaries on it.

[malkusm]

Read it over the summer, and it's scary how much of the stuff that happens in the book didn't seem relevant even then, but in these few short months have come to fruition.

[rajibo]

I've made several attempts over the years, but never really made it past the 1st 50 pages or so. One of these days....

I thought Fountainhead was ok.

[sevin]

I love Atlas Shrugged. I think the main flaw with her book, though, is she thinks the world will fall into socialism because the leaders are stupid. In reality, the world is falling into socialism because the leaders want more power.

Alan Greenspan used to be in her inner circle, even wrote an article called "Gold and Economic Freedom." He knows damn well that the Fed is a bad idea, but he, like so many others, wants more money and more power.

[gls]

I read it about 10 years ago as a freshman in high school (back when I used to regularly read things that aren’t on a computer screen). It certainly helped to solidify my burgeoning libertarian beliefs, although I was never quite comfortable with her specific Objectivist philosophy.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but what I got out of it is that all forms of charity are undesirable, not only just those welfare programs funded through coercive taxation. That doesn't seem right to me; even in a free society some will still "fall through the cracks", and private philanthropy is best positioned to determine who really needs the help and how to get them back on their feet.

Also, some of Rand’s modern-day followers seem to be worse than the neo cons when it comes to foreign policy. Take this excerpt from a front-page article on Paul in “The New Individualist”.



most dangerous of all, [Paul expouses] a platonic, utopian notion of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy: a view derived directly from his philosophical misunderstanding of the implications of individual rights, which would render America completely vulnerable to its enemies, destroy the security infrastructure at the foundation of international trade, and thus impoverish the nation."

Here's the cover that went along with that nonsensical ranting:

http://praxeology.net/randians-gone-wild-ron-paul-version.PNG

Are all Objectivists hyper-interventionists or is this just one faction?

[torchbearer]

I read it about 10 years ago as a freshman in high school (back when I used to regularly read things that aren’t on a computer screen). It certainly helped to solidify my burgeoning libertarian beliefs, although I was never quite comfortable with her specific Objectivist philosophy.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but what I got out of it is that all forms of charity are undesirable, not only just those welfare programs funded through coercive taxation. That doesn't seem right to me; even in a free society some will still "fall through the cracks", and private philanthropy is best positioned to determine who really needs the help and how to get them back on their feet.

Also, some of Rand’s modern-day followers seem to be worse than the neo cons when it comes to foreign policy. Take this excerpt from a front-page article on Paul in “The New Individualist”.




Here's the cover that went along with that nonsensical ranting:

http://praxeology.net/randians-gone-wild-ron-paul-version.PNG

Are all Objectivists hyper-interventionists or is this just one faction?



What is weird about that statement... if you read Ayn Rands "Virtue of Selfishness", she talks about engaging other nations... If I remember correctly she didn't believe in intervening with the soverienty of other nations.
It would turn us into thugs, which she despised.
ANyone else read the virtue of selfishness?

[Dorfsmith]

What is weird about that statement... if you read Ayn Rands "Virtue of Selfishness", she talks about engaging other nations... If I remember correctly she didn't believe in intervening with the soverienty of other nations.
It would turn us into thugs, which she despised.
ANyone else read the virtue of selfishness?

The virtue of selfishness is a good book and she seems very opposed to interventionism in it.

[gls]

What is weird about that statement... if you read Ayn Rands "Virtue of Selfishness", she talks about engaging other nations... If I remember correctly she didn't believe in intervening with the soverienty of other nations.
It would turn us into thugs, which she despised.
ANyone else read the virtue of selfishness?

Well, no matter what Rand's beliefs regarding intervention were, her supporters seem to be promoting policies that are downright evil and inhumane. For example take this article written shortly after 9/11, which advocates wholesale nuclear bombing of "terrorist counties".

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=5407&page=NewsArticle

[torchbearer]

Well, no matter what Rand's beliefs regarding intervention were, her supporters seem to be promoting policies that are downright evil and inhumane. For example take this article written shortly after 9/11, which advocates wholesale nuclear bombing of "terrorist counties".

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=5407&page=NewsArticle

If they aren't following Rand's teachings, they are not her followers.
Her organizations have been taken over by collectivist.
G. Edward Griffin addresses this in his "An Idea Whose Time has Come" seminar.

[sevin]

Modern day Randians/Objectivists have strayed very far from her original ideas. It's a shame. I used to be one of them years ago, but not anymore. The problem is their elitist attitude, which goes right along with the Bush Doctrine.

[Xenophage]

I read it about 10 years ago as a freshman in high school (back when I used to regularly read things that aren’t on a computer screen). It certainly helped to solidify my burgeoning libertarian beliefs, although I was never quite comfortable with her specific Objectivist philosophy.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but what I got out of it is that all forms of charity are undesirable, not only just those welfare programs funded through coercive taxation. That doesn't seem right to me; even in a free society some will still "fall through the cracks", and private philanthropy is best positioned to determine who really needs the help and how to get them back on their feet.

Also, some of Rand’s modern-day followers seem to be worse than the neo cons when it comes to foreign policy. Take this excerpt from a front-page article on Paul in “The New Individualist”.


Here's the cover that went along with that nonsensical ranting:

http://praxeology.net/randians-gone-wild-ron-paul-version.PNG

Are all Objectivists hyper-interventionists or is this just one faction?

Dude, no. I'm an Objectivist and I'm completely with Ron Paul.

Objectivism is not anti-charity in the least bit. Its the basis for the libertarian belief in private charity. All Objectivism states is that nobody has a moral DUTY to be charitable. In other words, if you don't donate to the Red Cross, that doesn't make you evil. It might make you an asshole, though! There's a difference! What would be considered evil is to take someone's money by force and give it away in the name of charity. So you completely misunderstood the philosophy.

Self-interest is NOT at odds with charity. Not even a little bit. It IS at odds with Altruism, which is a beast of a different color. Altruism means: forsaking yourself entirely to the whims of other people.

As for the New Individualist... there are a lot of dogmatic, rabid followers of Rand out there that call themselves Objectvists. They're incapable of escaping the same logical errors she made.

Rand herself was a bit more militaristic than many Objectivists are.

And yeah, there are two factions of Objectivist thought: So called Neo Objectivists, who accept that Objectivism as presented by Rand isn't perfect - and the hard line Randians who shout "EVIL!" at even the slightest deviation from straight Randian philosophy. The former is attributed to David Kelley and Nethaniel Branden, while the latter is attributed to Leonard Peikoff.

I can't stand Peikoff.

Kelley and Branden are genius.

[sevin]

I can't stand Peikoff.

Kelley and Branden are genius.

qfmft

[Xenophage]

I think the important thing to understand is that Objectivism is an open system. It isn't closed. Take away what you want from it, and if you take away bout 90% of it (like I do) you can call yourself an Objectivist.

I agree with all the fundamental tenants:

1 - Reason:

A belief that reality is objective, and can be known.
A belief that logic is our only tool for knowing reality.
A belief that that nothing is inherently, self-evidently true, and that all assumptions should be questioned back to their roots. Think for yourself!

2 - Self-interest/Egoism:

Understanding that your morality is derived from your values, and that your values ultimately relate back to your own life and happiness.
Holding that a human being is an end in themselves, and not a sacrificial animal to be used for the benefit of a leader or a state or a mob.
Exist to be happy!

3 - Capitalism

A belief that a free society is the only society compatible with human nature. Freedom is necessary to us in all that we endeavor to do.
A belief in fundamental human rights.
A belief in voluntarism, not force.

4 - Romanticism

A belief that art can be used to depict the heroic and the good and the possible, that it can be triumphant and inspiring, and that it can be used to bring high order abstractions down to a raw, emotional level.

I disagree that all art *has* to be this way though. I like rock songs about sex and drugs just as much as I love beethoven's 9th symphony :)

[gls]

Dude, no. I'm an Objectivist and I'm completely with Ron Paul.

Objectivism is not anti-charity in the least bit. Its the basis for the libertarian belief in private charity. All Objectivism states is that nobody has a moral DUTY to be charitable. In other words, if you don't donate to the Red Cross, that doesn't make you evil. It might make you an asshole, though! There's a difference! What would be considered evil is to take someone's money by force and give it away in the name of charity. So you completely misunderstood the philosophy.

Self-interest is NOT at odds with charity. Not even a little bit. It IS at odds with Altruism, which is a beast of a different color. Altruism means: forsaking yourself entirely to the whims of other people.

As for the New Individualist... there are a lot of dogmatic, rabid followers of Rand out there that call themselves Objectvists. They're incapable of escaping the same logical errors she made.

Rand herself was a bit more militaristic than many Objectivists are.

And yeah, there are two factions of Objectivist thought: So called Neo Objectivists, who accept that Objectivism as presented by Rand isn't perfect - and the hard line Randians who shout "EVIL!" at even the slightest deviation from straight Randian philosophy. The former is attributed to David Kelley and Nethaniel Branden, while the latter is attributed to Leonard Peikoff.

I can't stand Peikoff.

Kelley and Branden are genius.

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said it's been a while so I can only piece together what I remember. I agree that no one should be labeled “evil” for refusing to give to charity, although I don't necessarily regard social pressure to do so to be anywhere near as morally repugnant as the force inherent in government redistribution schemes (not that she did).

Of course, if Rand’s main contention is those on the top creating most of the wealth are the ones responsible for creating most of the prosperity, there’s no argument from me there.

As far as altruism goes, it seems to come down to ones’ personal views of the concept of “self-interest”. Recently I have been begun familiarizing myself with Buddhist philosophy, which seems to promote the idea that true fulfillment can only come about by projecting perceived self-interest outwards. In other words, it is in ones’ ultimate self-interest (achieving nirvana) to do without in order to benefit others. I suppose if one is seeking inner peace from selfless acts it is not really altruism, though. These are all very interesting moral and philosophical issues.

[Xenophage]

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said it's been a while so I can only piece together what I remember. I agree that no one should be labeled “evil” for refusing to give to charity, although I don't necessarily regard social pressure to do so to be anywhere near as morally repugnant as the force inherent in government redistribution schemes (not that she did).

Of course, if Rand’s main contention is those on the top creating most of the wealth are the ones responsible for creating most of the prosperity, there’s no argument from me there.

As far as altruism goes, it seems to come down to ones’ personal views of the concept of “self-interest”. Recently I have been begun familiarizing myself with Buddhist philosophy, which seems to promote the idea that true fulfillment can only come about by projecting perceived self-interest outwards. In other words, it is in ones’ ultimate self-interest (achieving nirvana) to do without in order to benefit others. I suppose if one is seeking inner peace from selfless acts it is not really altruism, though. These are all very interesting moral and philosophical issues.

Very deep thoughts!

You're right, and... as an Objectivst... I agree with the idea that charity can ultimately be in your self interest. Don't forget that emotions play a big role in determining what is in your self-interest. If it makes you feel good to help someone, that's great! As for me, I definitely feel compassion toward people who are having bad luck, and I'm inclined to help people and be generous. Its just the way I'm wired. But I can't stand people who think that they have a right to my money, or that they deserve all the same things I have that I've worked hard for and they haven't.

As for Buddhism, there are a lot of aspects of the ethical philosophy that I find appealing. I don't like the mystical aspects in the least bit, of course. As I said before, I believe in logic and objective reality. I believe in determining truth through critical thinking and scientific experimentation. Buddhists believe that truth doesn't exist - that each individual can exist in an entirely different reality and that its just as valid!

In a way, that's true: we are all islands of experience, separate from one another. Our consciousnesses are, in a way, isolated Universes of their own. So I can even take THAT away from Buddhism! But ultimately, I do believe that something very *real* exists outside of ourselves that is indepdent of what we think or feel. Even if I think I'm a giant cheesecake with laser beam eyeballs floating through fields of spaghetti, at some level there is an ultimate "reality" where that's either TRUE or FALSE - objectively - and I do believe we're capable of determining what that ultimate truth IS.

[Unspun]

I think the book is incredibly boring, the ideas within it are great, but all the fluff was just too wordy... I don't need to hear about how much of a slut Dagny is over and over again...

[undergroundrr]

Although it's been awhile since I've read Atlas (I've read it twice) I remember Rand being tough on outspoken altruists. The way I always read it was that she disapproved of those who tried to coerce or guilt others to give away the earnings of their productivity to the undeserving. They're the ones who lobby for and establish government-forced welfare, etc.

If I recall correctly, she was asked at a lecture if she was truly against giving to the poor - she responded that in a free society, there would be no-one to keep you from it.

I'm pretty sure she called for charitable institutions that were completely voluntary in one of her essays.

For better or worse, Rand's philosophy is tied in the minds of many to her unforgiving personality and over-the-top writing style. This is unfortunate for two reasons:
1. It causes sensible people to reject her tenets because of their distaste for her personally.
2. It causes Randroids who bought into her cult of personality to reject the essential benevolence of her beliefs.

As Paul has so beautifully expressed, if you really care about the poor and disadvantaged, then you have to be uncompromisingly anti-force and pro-free markets.

[Xenophage]

Although it's been awhile since I've read Atlas (I've read it twice) I remember Rand being tough on outspoken altruists. The way I always read it was that she disapproved of those who tried to coerce or guilt others to give away the earnings of their productivity to the undeserving. They're the ones who lobby for and establish government-forced welfare, etc.

If I recall correctly, she was asked at a lecture if she was truly against giving to the poor - she responded that in a free society, there would be no-one to keep you from it.

I'm pretty sure she called for charitable institutions that were completely voluntary in one of her essays.

For better or worse, Rand's philosophy is tied in the minds of many to her unforgiving personality and over-the-top writing style. This is unfortunate for two reasons:
1. It causes sensible people to reject her tenets because of their distaste for her personally.
2. It causes Randroids who bought into her cult of personality to reject the essential benevolence of her beliefs.

As Paul has so beautifully expressed, if you really care about the poor and disadvantaged, then you have to be uncompromisingly anti-force and pro-free markets.

Well said!

You're right about her personality and writing style.

At the same time, I love Ayn Rand's writing like I love a good, cold Sam Adams beer and a Rush album. Guiltless, sheer enjoyment, even while recognizing the over-the-top pomposity :) Sometimes, a Randian rant just "hits the spot" if you know what I mean!

[ronpaulforprez2008]

Ok I lied. I didn't read it. I've finally read Atlas Shrugged audio book. I got tired of people saying I should and now I see why. I assume 95% of this forum has read it in the past, but I just had to say how much more relevant it seems to be while I'm listening to it during the times we're in now. It feels as if I'm listening to news reports or politcal pundits of today. I don't think it would have had the same affect on me if I had listened to it years and years ago.

You know, some are not so certain that Rand was writing about the mass-man, but instead was referring to the elite. Kinda flips things on their head if you interpret her writings as applying to an elite....


She was sent over to lead – many of them were ordinary people who thought she was standing up for individual liberty. What they didn't realize was she was standing up reiterating and voicing on behalf of the people like Rothschild that was her lover. She was actually putting out their right, what they believed, for those who were superior to rule the majority underneath them and that the laws that they had for the public did not affect them. She thought that genius had the right to rule those that were rather silly or stupid according to her.


There's always two ways of looking at something and the majority of the public that followed her were really the lower middle class thinking she was standing up for individuality; but for those from the elites' point of view, she was actually pushing what their beliefs were. She was the mistress of Rothschild and others at the top and she believed in their right, the geniuses right to rule the lesser

What if those fundamental tenants that Rand espouses referred to an elite class and not the profane class...how would that change her message and your opinion of her?

PS. 2007 was the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged.

[AbolishTheGovt]

I'm planning to read it soon, but I want to get all the way through Hazlitt's "Foundations of Morality," Rothbard's "America's Great Depression," and Mises's "Human Action" first. Winter break is coming up at college pretty soon, and I'll have plenty of time. :D