Atlas shrugged

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/the_historic_significance_of_a.html

[Syren123]

Brilliant.

[hard@work]

Wait till you see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA&NR=1

Same fight, different generation. :)

[Pete]

Ayn Rand was an atheist and an elitist, and I think unfettered global capitalism is almost as bad as global socialism. To some extent, we're living it right now and the downside is excessive control of the government by big business. They have created too many regulatory barriers to small entrepreneurs, guaranteeing the eventual extinction of the middle class.

Government has also facilitated big business by protecting their property (copyright laws are especially onerous), giving them special privileges (representation in Congress, eminent domain), and providing transportation systems and cheap oil. If transportation costs were realistic, local businesses would compete much more effectively.

Between being stifled on one hand and robbed on the other, the average American is being totally cluster-****ed.

[undergroundrr]

Nice to see Rand get a little respect from conservatives. As you illustrate Pete, freedom is still kind of scary to many, but it wasn't to Ayn Rand. The mating of government and business interests is explored deeply in Atlas Shrugged, and was not something she condoned. I believe there's a section of the book called "The Politics of Pull."

Tracinski's article is a little light on how reason itself shapes Rand's thesis. I presume that's because he wanted to skip over the religious implications.

Dr. Paul was certainly influenced by Rand (see the Knoy interview at ronpaulaudio.com (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulLauraKnoyNewHampshirePublicRadio.mp3)). Why he maintained Christian belief in light of that would be interesting to hear. We should be glad he did, since professed atheists are still effectively barred from being elected to any federal office in the USA.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think Ayn Rand was more of a global-libertarian? She didn't care much about national borders

[giskard]

http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/09/history-of-government-regulation-and.html

[hard@work]

You don't have to agree 100% with a philosopher you know.

:)

[Steve Hunt]

What is the historical significance of the realities of the Chicago Boys work in Latin America, when not shoved under the rug?

[kylejack]

Nice to see Rand get a little respect from conservatives.

Well, this Tracinski is not a conservative so much as he is an Objectivist. He writes for the Ayn Rand Institute. Some of his op-eds here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_opeds

[kylejack]

Something to think about: RP has been married for 50 years and Atlas Shrugged is 50 years old. Kind of neat to think of the two of them getting married just as its published and then going through the next 50 years with each other fueled by Rand and libertarianism. Neat.

[Original_Intent]

Wow. I have never read "Atlas Shrugged" but after reading that article I believe I must.

[kylejack]

Wow. I have never read "Atlas Shrugged" but after reading that article I believe I must.
How did you ever manage to become a libertarian? ;)

[Original_Intent]

How did you ever manage to become a libertarian? ;)

Heh, I heard about Ron Paul maybe 15 years ago through my activity in the John Birch Society and have taken his newsletter "Freedom Report" ever since.

I have always believed in voting for the best candidate I could find regardless of party labels. I have always considered myself Republican at heart, but Reagan was the last Republican presidential candidate I cast a vote for.

I am not really "church-going" religious, but I do believe there is a God, and I don't think he is going to care if I "got Hillary elected" by refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils. I am much more concerned about being held responsible for who I did cast my vote for.

So I guess I kind of found libertarianism on my own. Ron Paul's writings have been a huge help, but I have always striven to be my own person.

[Harald]

I found Ayn Rand's books slightly lacking on economics. :p

Though as a springboard to bring people to libertarianism Atlas Shrugged is a very useful book.

[markpa]

I didn't read the whole article because I just started reading the book and didn't want any spoilers. This is my first introduction to her but I was told that she was against the libertarian party in her day. Does anyone have any insight on that?

[kylejack]

Ron Paul's writings have been a huge help, but I have always striven to be my own person.

All the more reason to inject yourself with some of Rand's rugged individualism.

[kylejack]

I didn't read the whole article because I just started reading the book and didn't want any spoilers. This is my first introduction to her but I was told that she was against the libertarian party in her day. Does anyone have any insight on that?
Yes, she hated the Libertarian Party. She was obsessed with Objectivism, which frankly is a pretty arrogant thing to name your philosophy. I think she was hoping an Objectivist party would develop with her as its elder sage. The Libertarian Party was laying out its platform, and she felt that they didn't have an underlying philosophy to go with it. She felt that everyone should have to take the route she takes to get to the liberty message. She was also pretty negative on homosexuals.

Ayn Rand was extremely close to libertarianism, but for whatever reason, she hated it with a passion. Ironically, her writings continue to pump out fresh libertarian minds.

[hard@work]

Yes, she hated the Libertarian Party. She was obsessed with Objectivism, which frankly is a pretty arrogant thing to name your philosophy. I think she was hoping an Objectivist party would develop with her as its elder sage. The Libertarian Party was laying out its platform, and she felt that they didn't have an underlying philosophy to go with it. She felt that everyone should have to take the route she takes to get to the liberty message. She was also pretty negative on homosexuals.

Ayn Rand was extremely close to libertarianism, but for whatever reason, she hated it with a passion. Ironically, her writings continue to pump out fresh libertarian minds.


Objectivism has it's merits but it does remove from the sense of community. The powerful spirit of entrepreneurship she evokes is sorely needed. But community is as well.

[MicroBalrog]

I think Ayn Rand was more of a global-libertarian? She didn't care much about national borders

I don't think libertarians would like her view of foreign policy.

[ARealConservative]

The only thing I always hated was her obsession with smoking.

Both Atlas and the Fountainhead goes to great lengths making smoking sound so wonderful. I realize it was the era - but for such a free thinker- she really got that one wrong.

[Bob Cochran]

I decided to read "Atlas Shrugged" a few years ago, so I did.

The whole premise was silly. It paints a world where a few leading industrialists disappear and gather at some secret location where they run a utopian society.

And because the leading industrialists have left us poor clueless schmucks behind, the world is falling apart. No one knows what to do without the talented elite around.

That idea -- that we would all flounder if not for the enlightened leadership of the chosen few -- sounds great to those who consider themselves to be "gifted leaders" or "individuals of the mind", I'm sure, but c'mon, really.

If the CEOs of Microsoft, Intel, Boeing, GM, GE (name a few more of your favorite companies) abandoned us in favor of their island utopia, I think we'd all get by just fine.

[Bob Cochran]

All the more reason to inject yourself with some of Rand's rugged individualism.
Her stuff was different and makes great fuel for long conversations about philosophy, political and economic systems, etc. I haven't met many people who have read her stuff and fully understood what she was trying to say.

[hard@work]

Puh-leez. She was out of touch with reality.

I for one cherish the entrepreneurial spirit of America. And I do believe the competitive nature of humanity is beneficial in a fair playing field. I do not think this is out of touch with reality. In fact, I think it is something I participate in each day as a business owner. Do I subscribe to the pure objectivist view? No, no reason to when I clearly disagree with some points. However what I do agree on is what is best about American business. The culture and spirit of enterprise that is not greedy or evil. It is merely the joy of achievement and the willingness to strive for a higher goal.

I feel no shame in this nor would I give you any credence to take this spirit away from me. Especially since in the business world it is quite simply: reality.

[Rich333]

I think unfettered global capitalism is almost as bad as global socialism. To some extent, we're living it right now and the downside is excessive control of the government by big business.
Capitalism, the free market, is the condition which exists in the absence of government and other criminal violence. It is based on the individual's inherent and unalienable self-ownership, and all which rationally derives from this. That means the right to homestead unclaimed natural resources (and thereby make them property), and the right to engage in relationships with other individuals based on mutual consent. The latter serves as the basis for contracts, trade, and every other social interaction in a capitalist society.

Rights are limited only by the equal rights of other individuals; hence theft, rape, murder, kidnapping, vandalism, and fraud are all objectively criminal. It is self-evident that only the individual thinks and only the individual acts, and thus it is impossible to shift or distribute responsibility as this is something which takes place in individuals and nowhere else. It is also impossible for a group to claim more rights or authority than exist in each voluntary member of that group. As such the only just form of governance, and the only one acceptable in a truly capitalist society, is one based on unanimous consent of the governed. Regulations and taxes can only be enforced and a territorial monopoly on the provision of security and justice services can only be maintained through the threat and use of physical violence against those who have committed no objectively criminal acts. This is therefore criminal and any organization which engages in such practices, whether it assumes the label of "government" or not, is an objectively criminal organization.


They have created too many regulatory barriers to small entrepreneurs, guaranteeing the eventual extinction of the middle class.
That's mercantilism, not capitalism.


Government has also facilitated big business by protecting their property (copyright laws are especially onerous), giving them special privileges (representation in Congress, eminent domain), and providing transportation systems and cheap oil. If transportation costs were realistic, local businesses would compete much more effectively.
Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with property. "Intellectual property" is a propaganda term with no rational basis in actual property rights, as it is not derived from the homesteading of unclaimed natural resources; property can only be created through the mixture of human labor with unclaimed nature. The Constitution itself acknowledges that information is not property. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 authorizes Congress "(t)o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Real property rights are not temporary, nor are they created by legislative bodies. Copyrights and patents are special government-granted privileges, "information protectionism", and have no place in a free market. All the other government-granted privileges you listed are equally out of place in a capitalist society.

[Rich333]

The whole premise was silly. It paints a world where a few leading industrialists disappear and gather at some secret location where they run a utopian society.

And because the leading industrialists have left us poor clueless schmucks behind, the world is falling apart. No one knows what to do without the talented elite around.

That idea -- that we would all flounder if not for the enlightened leadership of the chosen few -- sounds great to those who consider themselves to be "gifted leaders" or "individuals of the mind", I'm sure, but c'mon, really.

If the CEOs of Microsoft, Intel, Boeing, GM, GE (name a few more of your favorite companies) abandoned us in favor of their island utopia, I think we'd all get by just fine.
There are a number of things on which Rand and I disagree, but this is not one of them. She was describing what would happen to a world without entrepreneurs. Without entrepreneurs, society cannot function. Entrepreneurs are the ones who identify consumer demand potentials and translate that into supply. Without them there would be no supply of new goods and services and the world would stagnate.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Ayn Rand was an atheist

What's your point?


I think unfettered global capitalism is almost as bad as global socialism. To some extent, we're living it right now

No we're not....


the downside is excessive control of the government by big business. They have created too many regulatory barriers to small entrepreneurs, guaranteeing the eventual extinction of the middle class.

Government has also facilitated big business by protecting their property (copyright laws are especially onerous), giving them special privileges (representation in Congress, eminent domain), and providing transportation systems and cheap oil. If transportation costs were realistic, local businesses would compete much more effectively.

Between being stifled on one hand and robbed on the other, the average American is being totally cluster-****ed.

....and you just explained the reason why.

[Pete]

Capitalism, the free market, is the condition which exists in the absence of government and other criminal violence. It is based on the individual's inherent and unalienable self-ownership, and all which rationally derives from this. That means the right to homestead unclaimed natural resources (and thereby make them property), and the right to engage in relationships with other individuals based on mutual consent. The latter serves as the basis for contracts, trade, and every other social interaction in a capitalist society.

Rights are limited only by the equal rights of other individuals; hence theft, rape, murder, kidnapping, vandalism, and fraud are all objectively criminal. It is self-evident that only the individual thinks and only the individual acts, and thus it is impossible to shift or distribute responsibility as this is something which takes place in individuals and nowhere else. It is also impossible for a group to claim more rights or authority than exist in each voluntary member of that group. As such the only just form of governance, and the only one acceptable in a truly capitalist society, is one based on unanimous consent of the governed. Regulations and taxes can only be enforced and a territorial monopoly on the provision of security and justice services can only be maintained through the threat and use of physical violence against those who have committed no objectively criminal acts. This is therefore criminal and any organization which engages in such practices, whether it assumes the label of "government" or not, is an objectively criminal organization.

It would seem to me that in such a system, those with the biggest checkbooks (and therefore guns) would hold sway, and that unanimity would be obtained by influence and coercion.

I have not read Atlas Shrugged in 30+ years, so possibly Rand addressed this objection. If so, please pardon my ignorance.


Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with property. "Intellectual property" is a propaganda term with no rational basis in actual property rights, as it is not derived from the homesteading of unclaimed natural resources; property can only be created through the mixture of human labor with unclaimed nature. The Constitution itself acknowledges that information is not property. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 authorizes Congress "(t)o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Real property rights are not temporary, nor are they created by legislative bodies. Copyrights and patents are special government-granted privileges, "information protectionism", and have no place in a free market. All the other government-granted privileges you listed are equally out of place in a capitalist society.

IMO, intellectual property has value and should be regulated to some extent. Let's say our Rand-esque hero spends a few years developing his engine that runs on Chinese newspapers, only to have it knocked off by some sweatshop, with no recourse available. Is that civilization?

The way terms of copyrights have been extended, and the vastness of what can be judged as being derivative works, has gotten way out of hand. This is because of special interests acting on Congress, e.g., Clinton and his Hollywood friends. I don't think anything is wrong with the Constitutional view, however.

[1000-points-of-fright]

It would seem to me that in such a system, those with the biggest checkbooks (and therefore guns) would hold sway, and that unanimity would be obtained by influence and coercion.

Try telling Thomas Jefferson that.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pete
Ayn Rand was an atheist

What's your point?
I am not criticizing Rand for not believing in God, but I think her being an atheist explains some of her views, namely:

The individual as supreme authority.
Social Darwinism, and associated
disdain for charity.

[Pete]

Try telling Thomas Jefferson that.

With no other government, how would a property owner otherwise protect his turf?

[cujothekitten]

With no other government, how would a property owner otherwise protect his turf?

It depends on how far you want to go with this. If you're talking about a normal society it would simply be an armed household which protects itself... much the same way we do now. A cop doesn't "protect" us per say, he really just shows up after the fact and investigates the crime. There's no reason to think a private security company can't fill this void.

If you want to look into it google "DRO" and "anarchy".

[Pete]

It depends on how far you want to go with this.

Oh, I'm not anti-government. I was talking about a theoretical pure capitalist system with the other poster. I don't want to go there at all.

[Rich333]

It would seem to me that in such a system, those with the biggest checkbooks (and therefore guns) would hold sway, and that unanimity would be obtained by influence and coercion.
I could probably write a book-length response to this but it'd take me all day and I doubt you'd want to read it; I'm also a proud embracer of the holy virtue of sloth. Roderick Long has summarized responses to the 10 most common objections here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html); your objection is number 8.


I have not read Atlas Shrugged in 30+ years, so possibly Rand addressed this objection. If so, please pardon my ignorance.
Rand believed in a territorial monopoly on security and justice services (a government) funded by voluntary donations instead of taxes. She had a kneejerk "anarchy is chaos" reaction the same as most people do, so she never let go of the idea of at least some minimal government. This is one of those issues where Rand and I disagree completely. My own view is that "good government" is a paradox. Governments are invariably made up of people, and any people so decent as to be capable of implementing "good government" must be equally capable of settling their disputes through the market and so would be better off without their "good government", while any people so rotten as to be incapable of settling their disputes through the market, and who are thus in need of "good government", must be equally incapable of implementing it. This is based on the recognition that governments are not magical third parties external to human society, and thus that we never really get out of anarchy (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf).


IMO, intellectual property has value and should be regulated to some extent. Let's say our Rand-esque hero spends a few years developing his engine that runs on Chinese newspapers, only to have it knocked off by some sweatshop, with no recourse available. Is that civilization?
Yes, I'd say it is civilization, though Rand would take your side of the debate. She was adamantly in favor of "intellectual property". This is another topic on which I could write a book-length response, and like I said I'm lazy, so I'll just leave you with Is Intellectual Property the Key to Success? (http://www.mises.org/story/2632)


The way terms of copyrights have been extended, and the vastness of what can be judged as being derivative works, has gotten way out of hand. This is because of special interests acting on Congress, e.g., Clinton and his Hollywood friends. I don't think anything is wrong with the Constitutional view, however.
If information is genuinely property, then the current extensions don't go nearly far enough. If I own something, I have an absolute right to control its use, forever. If information is property then an author should be able to dictate that you forget in entirety everything of his that you've read, as the information in your brain belongs to him and is his to do with as he pleases. If information is not genuinely property, then by what right is its use restricted? Enforcing copyrights means using physical violence or the threat thereof to dictate how others use their own property; it requires a violation of individual rights.

[ChooseLiberty]

Ok. I know Ayn Rand is some kind of hero to some people, but she stole all her ideas and was a crappy writer. Her books read like they were written by a 12 year old.

[BuddyRey]

I'm hearing more and more about this book all the time. Guess I'll mosey on down to the local li-bary and check it out!

I love Utopian novels, but I haven't really read all that many, because Dystopian ones are usually a lot more interesting! I think I read Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward" in Eighth Grade (can't remember if I got anything out of it at the time), and "Atlas Shrugged" sounds like the exact opposite of the Utopia Bellamy predicted.

[torchbearer]

I'm hearing more and more about this book all the time. Guess I'll mosey on down to the local li-bary and check it out!

I love Utopian novels, but I haven't really read all that many, because Dystopian ones are usually a lot more interesting! I think I read Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward" in Eighth Grade (can't remember if I got anything out of it at the time), and "Atlas Shrugged" sounds like the exact opposite of the Utopia Bellamy predicted.

Atlas Shrugged - the world collapses because the thinkers moved to a secret city. The thinkers refused to be used as a host for the parasite non-thinkers in society.. the non-thinkers are those that advocated socialism because socialism allowed them to survive off of another's abilities... but when all the thinkers left... to there own secluded paradise... the rest of the world crashed and burned, feeding upon itself like cannibals until none were left. The End.

[ChooseLiberty]

You're a better writer than Rand. ;)



Atlas Shrugged - the world collapses because the thinkers moved to a secret city. The thinkers refused to be used as a host for the parasite non-thinkers in society.. the non-thinkers are those that advocated socialism because socialism allowed them to survive off of another's abilities... but when all the thinkers left... to there own secluded paradise... the rest of the world crashed and burned, feeding upon itself like cannibals until none were left. The End.

[torchbearer]

You're a better writer than Rand. ;)

Well, if i can save someone hours of reading...
also- I'd recommend getting "The Virtue of Selfishness" Skip the pretty stories and go straight for the lecture.

[Rich333]

I have to agree with ChooseLiberty on Rand's talent, or lack thereof, as a writer. Just watch The Fountainhead (1949 film based on her book of the same name, screenplay written by Rand) to get a sample of how poorly she tells a story. Her characters are poorly developed, often very one dimensional, and act in ways which just don't make any sense. Her main characters also might as well just be the same person, because they're all the same. If you want to read some quality libertarian fiction, read some Robert Heinlein (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a must read), L. Neil Smith, or Michael Z. Williamson (Freehold is available online from the Baen Free Library (http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0743471792/0743471792.htm)).

[BuddyRey]

Atlas Shrugged - the world collapses because the thinkers moved to a secret city. The thinkers refused to be used as a host for the parasite non-thinkers in society.. the non-thinkers are those that advocated socialism because socialism allowed them to survive off of another's abilities... but when all the thinkers left... to there own secluded paradise... the rest of the world crashed and burned, feeding upon itself like cannibals until none were left. The End.

Wow...and you're sure this book inspired Libertarianism? It seems a lot more like a thesis for "the supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite" as Davey Rockefeller once said. Sounds to me like Ayn was jockeying for a seat at the Bilderberg Group.

[Rich333]

Wow...and you're sure this book inspired Libertarianism?
That's what the Randroids might like to claim, but no it didn't. Libertarianism is the modern day continuation of classical liberalism. Men like Frederic Bastiat and Gustave de Molinari were infinitely more important to the development of libertarianism than Rand ever was.

[torchbearer]

Wow...and you're sure this book inspired Libertarianism? It seems a lot more like a thesis for "the supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite" as Davey Rockefeller once said. Sounds to me like Ayn was jockeying for a seat at the Bilderberg Group.

Well, there is a part in the book when one of the railroad workers was out putting up emergency lights or something like that... and basically, the main character stumbles upon this man, doing something intelligent without being told to do it... and basically rewards him for his initiative.
It really isn't about elitism... its about individualism... she was being very demeaning to the collectivist. She saw them as not having an honest value system and that their virtues of self-sacrifice and duty to the greater good/state as highly offensive, she comes off as elitist, because she was... but the principle of individualism and collectivism isn't about elitism it is a competition of value systems. Just listen to the speech given by Jon Gault. I think there is a youtube of it... let me see if i can find it.

[torchbearer]

Here is a speech taken for Atlas Shrugged on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0

In it... John Galt basically lines out the two philosophies, individualism and collectivism.... he list the values and virtues of each and the outcome of it.
You should be able to understand the speech without knowing the story...

He begins describing himself... the individualist...
Then he tells the collectivist why they now suffer, he list their virtues and what it has brought humanity.

[undergroundrr]

Rand was a popularizer of classical liberal ideals. She had intimate familiarity with the Russian Revolution. So her account of the contrast between the SU and US is particularly dramatic. As she lived in the US, she came to recognize the means by which it was devouring itself.

Say what you want, but her perspective was unique. The very mention of Atlas Shrugged is a trigger for substantive conversation about the relationship between the individual and society, as seen in this thread.

[torchbearer]

OH!! there is a part two for the above John Galt speech!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpo3OoyUUUc

[torchbearer]

a bump for those that didn't know.

[Pete]

I could probably write a book-length response to this but it'd take me all day and I doubt you'd want to read it; I'm also a proud embracer of the holy virtue of sloth.
TBH, my ethic also requires a different agenda than discussing of a book I read before I was even very involved in the adult world. I'm also very uninformed about anarchy, I guess, because my interpretation of that form of government, or lack thereof, would not include courts. I had envisioned rather a survival of the fittest, or richest.

I agree with your statement that any form of government is to an important extent anarchic.

[Mesogen]

Ayn Rand was an atheist and an elitist, and I think unfettered global capitalism is almost as bad as global socialism. To some extent, we're living it right now and the downside is excessive control of the government by big business. They have created too many regulatory barriers to small entrepreneurs, guaranteeing the eventual extinction of the middle class.

Government has also facilitated big business by protecting their property (copyright laws are especially onerous), giving them special privileges (representation in Congress, eminent domain), and providing transportation systems and cheap oil. If transportation costs were realistic, local businesses would compete much more effectively.

Between being stifled on one hand and robbed on the other, the average American is being totally cluster-****ed.

You talk about atheism like its a bad thing.

elitism is bad, sure. And yes global capitalism without some check in place would be far worse than global socialism. It would be like one big Chiquita banana plantation.

[Pete]

You talk about atheism like its a bad thing.

I was sort of free associating (bad habit), with the result that the first nine words of that sentence were extraneous.

From my personal experience as an atheist, I'd say it doesn't do much for one's regard for fellow human beings.

LOL at the banana plantation. :D

[BuddyRey]

I haven't started Atlas Shrugged yet, but I'm now 100 pages into The Fountainhead, and I must say I'm thoroughly enjoying it! I'm not sure where all of the folks accusing Rand of poor writing ability are coming from, because, speaking just for me, it's probably one of the most absorbing books I've picked up in quite a while!

[torchbearer]

Rand is good are she wouldn't have gotten popular. SOmebody had to like her writing. ;)