Atlas Shrugged

[Carehn]

Read it. Do not watch the stupid movie. Read the God damn book. If your reading this and you haven't then just trust some random dude on the internet for a change and READ IT. You will thank me in a couple of months. Best book ever written, period!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ALySsPXt0

[Xenophage]

Queue Ayn Rand haters in 3.... 2... 1....

[slamhead]

Queue Ayn Rand haters in 3.... 2... 1....

LOL

[freeforall]

Definitely the best book I've ever read! I refuse to watch a movie of it and risk changing my mental images of it.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I can tell you why Atlas Shrugged. He was saying "M'eh" after reading that book. Not the worst but not exactly high literature. A little too melodramatic and every character was totally one dimensional. The idea could have been gotten across in a much shorter, less browbeating essay.

But that's just me.

[freeforall]

I can tell you why Atlas Shrugged. He was saying "M'eh" after reading that book. Not the worst but not exactly high literature. A little too melodramatic and every character was totally one dimensional. The idea could have been gotten across in a much shorter, less browbeating essay.

But that's just me.

Anthem is also a great read and can be done in a day or two.

[Xenophage]

I can tell you why Atlas Shrugged. He was saying "M'eh" after reading that book. Not the worst but not exactly high literature. A little too melodramatic and every character was totally one dimensional. The idea could have been gotten across in a much shorter, less browbeating essay.

But that's just me.

The characters are supposed to be one-dimensional. They're archetypes representing certain ideas. Through the use of one-dimensional characters, Rand is able to demonstrate philosophical principles through fiction without confusing the issues. They had to be one-dimensional for it to work.

If you want an example of more fully fleshed, realistic characters written by Rand, read We The Living, which is a tremendously good story about a girl living through the Red revolution in communist Russia.

The story is melodramatic because the cause of individual liberty IS melodramatic! Liberty is important, it is a romantic and noble idea, and it needs passionate defense. Ayn Rand gave liberty the passionate defense it needed.

Not high literature? There is no higher literature than Atlas Shrugged, except perhaps some Robert Heinlein (Even the worst pulp science fiction is superior to any crap written by Charles Dickens, and Heinlein was the master of libertarian sci-fi!).

[heavenlyboy34]

The characters are supposed to be one-dimensional. They're archetypes representing certain ideas. Through the use of one-dimensional characters, Rand is able to demonstrate philosophical principles through fiction without confusing the issues. They had to be one-dimensional for it to work.

If you want an example of more fully fleshed, realistic characters written by Rand, read We The Living, which is a tremendously good story about a girl living through the Red revolution in communist Russia.

The story is melodramatic because the cause of individual liberty IS melodramatic! Liberty is important, it is a romantic and noble idea, and it needs passionate defense. Ayn Rand gave liberty the passionate defense it needed.

Not high literature? There is no higher literature than Atlas Shrugged, except perhaps some Robert Heinlein.
:rolleyes: srsly? "Atlas" is pretty good, but not what I would call high literature. I too find the characters rather flat and the dialogue stilted in many places. I understand that they're supposed to be archetypes, but that doesn't mean they have to be flat. Orwell and Zamyatin made their archetypal characters very interesting. It would be accurate to call it a mystery story (Peikoff calls it a mysetery in his introduction in the 50th anniversary edition) with a message. For high literature, see Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Pushkin, the Shakespeare canon, Jules Verne, etc.

(this is not a hating on Rand, just speaking from a writer's and reader's POV)

[kuckfeynes]

That was the book that got me started.
Still one of my favorites, lit snobs be damned.
Saw the trailer... Would not watch that if you paid me.

"Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper..."

[heavenlyboy34]

That was the book that got me started.
Still one of my favorites, lit snobs be damned.
Saw the trailer... Would not watch that if you paid me.

"Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper..."
As a mystery and somewhat libertarian tale, it's great. But high literature it is not. (no hate :) )

[Xenophage]

:rolleyes: srsly? "Atlas" is pretty good, but not what I would call high literature. I too find the characters rather flat and the dialogue stilted in many places. I understand that they're supposed to be archetypes, but that doesn't mean they have to be flat. Orwell and Zamyatin made their archetypal characters very interesting. It would be accurate to call it a mystery story (Peikoff calls it a mysetery in his introduction in the 50th anniversary edition) with a message. For high literature, see Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Pushkin, the Shakespeare canon, Jules Verne, etc.

(this is not a hating on Rand, just speaking from a writer's and reader's POV)

You misunderstood me... I'm not saying Rand is the greatest author. Frankly, she's a GREAT author, but she isn't the GREATEST. I don't care about her sentence structure or the development of her characters even a fraction as much as I care about the content of her novels and the story arcs. On sheer content, theme and an ability to enrapture the reader, Atlas Shrugged succeeds in ways few other stories ever have. To me, that is high literature.

Shakespeare's content is dreary. Why would I want to read about a bunch of barbaric human beings killing and slandering one another in the name of collectivism and raging adolescent hormones? The Twilight saga does a fairly good job of summing up most of Shakespeare. And his characters? They aren't even one dimensional, they're half dimensional. Just because he has nice prose doesn't make him a great author. He wrote for the stage in a pre-industrial society lacking electronics and amplification... lines had to be delivered with extra ridiculous bravado.

Jules Verne on the other hand is great! He's an amazing author and I've enjoyed everything I ever got my hands on. But he doesn't compare to Ayn Rand, and he never wrote anything approaching the epic scope of Atlas Shrugged. He wasn't much of a philosopher, except for being a little bit of a socialist.

[Xenophage]

By the way, I know my definition of high literature is entirely subjective and no liberal college professor would agree :P. I also know you aren't hatin'. I'm just expressing what *I* appreciate in a story, and why.

[Karsten]

I've read some of her non-fiction works, "Virtue of Selfishness," for instance. I just have trouble getting myself into a long fiction novel to understand some points that I can read in a few non-fiction essays. I think I understand most of Rand's positions very well without reading any of her novels. But, I'm not bashing them (never read them), it's just a personal preference. That said, there are things I know about Rand that I do not like:

In general she had pretty interventionist views on foreign policy. You can tell that when you look at how pro-Rand groups like CATO and Reason are, and to some degree, the Republican establishment. True anti-war libertarians like Mises Institute and the folks are Lewrockwell.com consider her quite a mixed bag. Thus, she kind of got it into the minds of many conservatives that it's ok to be for "small government" domestically and favor intervention abroad.

[kuckfeynes]

Ayn Rand an interventionist? I do agree with Rothbard more than Rand, but let's be careful not to confuse the positions of Rand with those who like to posthumously exploit her name...

http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnWWII.htm

[Xenophage]

I've read some of her non-fiction works, "Virtue of Selfishness," for instance. I just have trouble getting myself into a long fiction novel to understand some points that I can read in a few non-fiction essays. I think I understand most of Rand's positions very well without reading any of her novels. But, I'm not bashing them (never read them), it's just a personal preference. That said, there are things I know about Rand that I do not like:

In general she had pretty interventionist views on foreign policy. You can tell that when you look at how pro-Rand groups like CATO and Reason are, and to some degree, the Republican establishment. True anti-war libertarians like Mises Institute and the folks are Lewrockwell.com consider her quite a mixed bag. Thus, she kind of got it into the minds of many conservatives that it's ok to be for "small government" domestically and favor intervention abroad.

She did not have interventionist ideas at all. Your analysis of the situation is all wrong. Murray Rothbard didn't like Ayn Rand, because Ayn thought he should divorce his wife. She brought it up many times and he eventually stopped talking to her because of it. That was one of the many conflicts that led to the destructive splintering of the liberty movement early in its formative years. The Mises Institute was formed by Rothbard's disciples, and they are all pretty hostile to Objectivism in general. The irony is, Rand thought Ludwig von Mises was the greatest economist in history. The two of them wrote each other quite a bit and had a lot of mutual respect.

A letter written by Ludwig von Mises to Ayn Rand in praise of Atlas Shrugged: http://mises.org/etexts/misesatlas.pdf

So is the Mises institute really that Misean? It's also interesting to note that von Mises was not an anarchist and did not agree with Murray Rothbard. Why, then, is the Mises Institute overrun with anarchists? Shouldn't they have called it the Rothbard institute?

I digress... a lot, it would seem. What was I saying before?

Oh yeah, Rand wasn't an interventionist. I dare say her foreign policy would align perfectly with Ron Paul's, except she would use very different language. Rand would, in one sentence, condemn Iran and its government while simultaneously condemning the American politicians who wished to go to war with Iran as being of the same collectivist ilk.

[Jtorsella]

Read it. Do not watch the stupid movie. Read the God damn book. If your reading this and you haven't then just trust some random dude on the internet for a change and READ IT. You will thank me in a couple of months. Best book ever written, period!
THIS THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!

[Jtorsella]

Fransico D'anconia's money speech is incredible.

[JuicyG]

Oh yeah, Rand wasn't an interventionist. I dare say her foreign policy would align perfectly with Ron Paul's, except she would use very different language. Rand would, in one sentence, condemn Iran and its government while simultaneously condemning the American politicians who wished to go to war with Iran as being of the same collectivist ilk.

Exactly. Very well said.

Ayn Rand said she found gays disgusting but she would never oppose letting them express themselves the way they see fit and interfere with their individual freedoms. She didn`t shy away from expressing her views to fit political correctness. That`s how she was.

[cthulhufan]

Read it. Do not watch the stupid movie. Read the God damn book. If your reading this and you haven't then just trust some random dude on the internet for a change and READ IT. You will thank me in a couple of months. Best book ever written, period!
I'm very glad I read it! The writing was terrible, some parts were just down right awful but it was a good book despite it's attempts to the contrary. Not hating just saying that I'm glad I read it but did not enjoy reading it. /Agree with the "it's not high literature" crowd.

I'd, personally, rather read Paine. Apparently the verbosity is a pretty typical Russian trait from what I hear. Going to find that out for myself by reading Dr. Zhivago and some other classics.

In any event, don't get upset if you are a rabid Rand fan, it was a great message I just *personally* didn't care for the writing.

[Carehn]

As a mystery and somewhat libertarian tale, it's great. But high literature it is not. (no hate :) )
I have come across people who feel that way. I think its 'high literature' but what ever. I willing to bet that in a thousand years you can still buy Atlas in some kind of book store or what ever they will have then.

[Lothario]

They are all fantastic, but I'd have to say I found The Fountainhead to be the most enjoyable of the lot.

[frodus24]

Atlas Shrugged was the longest book that I had ever read in my life. I found it amazing and it definitely opened my eyes to ideas that I had never been subjected to. I would read and go, "Damn, that is sorta what is happening currently with our administration." Seriously, if you have not read the book, then do it ASAP.

I did watch part 1 of the movie and only gave it 2 out of 5 stars. READ the book! It changed my life forever.

[Jtorsella]

They are all fantastic, but I'd have to say I found The Fountainhead to be the most enjoyable of the lot.
The Fountainhead is a much better novel; Atlas Shrugged is more philosophically explanatory.

[VBRonPaulFan]

i loved atlas shrugged once i got a good ways into the book. the first 1/3 or 1/2 of the book was pretty slow to me and hard for me to get into. the last half was money though!

[Wesker1982]

A letter written by Ludwig von Mises to Ayn Rand in praise of Atlas Shrugged: http://mises.org/etexts/misesatlas.pdf


Rothbard also wrote to her in praise of Atlas Shrugged.


So is the Mises institute really that Misean?

Definitely. His work on praxeology is fundamental to the Austrian School. Mises introduced praxeology, Rothbard just expanded on it.


It's also interesting to note that von Mises was not an anarchist and did not agree with Murray Rothbard.

He advocated micro-secession down to the individual level. I don't know why you are bringing this up though.


Why, then, is the Mises Institute overrun with anarchists?

The people at the LvMI have just taken the ideas of Mises to their logical conclusion.


Shouldn't they have called it the Rothbard institute?

Rothbard contributed to the study of human action (praxeology), but Mises introduced it. Mises is the "father" of praxeology, so naming the institute dedicated to the study of human action after him makes sense. Rothbard was a student of Mises and contributed to the Austrian School, but the introduction itself of praxeology (foundational to the Austrian School) was more significant than Rothbard's additions to it.

I realize Carl Menger is considered the founder of the Austrian School, but apparently the founders of the LvMI considered the work of Mises on human action to be more important to the contribution of the Austrian School. Who knows, but the conversation would make more sense if you were asking why it is not the Carl Menger Institute instead of the LvMI.

Now on to Atlas Shrugged...

I am on part III right now. About 300 pages from finishing. IMO, how you view the book will depend on your beliefs going into it. What I mean is that it is going to be a more significant book to someone who finds these ideas to be new vs someone who is already a raging libertarian.

I think the reason this book was praised so much is because at the time it was released, these ideas were not popular, and not many people had exposure to them. So reading this book in 1957 while still fully indoctrinated by the state would have a "red pill" effect on many people, i.e. it would blow their mind. Basically, if I had read this book before studying any sort of work on the economics and ethics of private property, it would have probably changed my life.

While I am reading it, I am trying to put myself in the mindset of someone who has never read these ideas. When I do this, it is more apparent as to why this book was so important.

I am convinced that if everyone who's life was changed by Atlas Shrugged (1957) had read Human Action (1949) first, the impact of Atlas Shrugged would be much less. The genius of Atlas Shrugged was that it was in a novel form and easier to digest than something like Human Action, but still expressed the ideas very well (which is why imo Rothbard and Mises loved it so much).

In short, it is obviously an epic book and a very important contribution to the liberty movement. If you read it and are not blown away, it is probably because these ideas are nothing new to you.

[moderate libertarian]

Queue Ayn Rand haters in 3.... 2... 1....

I heard rumors that she did not believe in equal rights for arabs and jews, is that true?

I used to think positively of her but now neutral till I research her views bit further.

[teacherone]

Well I majored in English at UC Berkeley and never once heard her name mentioned.

NEVER heard of her until she was mentioned on these very boards.

I still cannot believe that an author with such an influence over 20th American psyche has been so blacked out.

Yes her writing came secondary to her ideas... but her ideas!

[Jtorsella]

Now on to Atlas Shrugged...

I am on part III right now. About 300 pages from finishing. IMO, how you view the book will depend on your beliefs going into it. What I mean is that it is going to be a more significant book to someone who finds these ideas to be new vs someone who is already a raging libertarian.

I think the reason this book was praised so much is because at the time it was released, these ideas were not popular, and not many people had exposure to them. So reading this book in 1957 while still fully indoctrinated by the state would have a "red pill" effect on many people, i.e. it would blow their mind. Basically, if I had read this book before studying any sort of work on the economics and ethics of private property, it would have probably changed my life.

While I am reading it, I am trying to put myself in the mindset of someone who has never read these ideas. When I do this, it is more apparent as to why this book was so important.

I am convinced that if everyone who's life was changed by Atlas Shrugged (1957) had read Human Action (1949) first, the impact of Atlas Shrugged would be much less. The genius of Atlas Shrugged was that it was in a novel form and easier to digest than something like Human Action, but still expressed the ideas very well (which is why imo Rothbard and Mises loved it so much).

In short, it is obviously an epic book and a very important contribution to the liberty movement. If you read it and are not blown away, it is probably because these ideas are nothing new to you.
I came to it as a moderate libertarian who was just beginning to become politically active and based all of my positions on economics, and I wasn't really educated. Atlas Shrugged completely blew my mind. The money speech was epic. I have never been the same, and now argue from a moral or principled perspective.

[FreeTraveler]

If you have any interest in Atlas Shrugged at all, whether you've read it or not, take a look at this amazing tour de force presentation of John Galt's speech. This is the first of a series of videos presenting the entire speech backed with amazing video and picture presentations.

One of the funny bits is they used clips of Fred Thompson to represent "Mr. Thompson." :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00xStn_jXKo

[kuckfeynes]

In short, it is obviously an epic book and a very important contribution to the liberty movement. If you read it and are not blown away, it is probably because these ideas are nothing new to you.

Very true. The beauty of Ayn Rand's fiction IS its accessibility and plainness of language, which is something that those already well-read in liberty and anarchism would have little use for. I can say with relative certainty that if I had stumbled upon Human Action instead of Atlas Shrugged when I was 20, having no real background or relevant knowledge, I likely would not have gotten through it.


I heard rumors that she did not believe in equal rights for arabs and jews, is that true?

I used to think positively of her but now neutral till I research her views bit further.

These are ridiculous charges caused by the words and actions of the Ayn Rand Institute well after her death.
Spend some time on ariwatch.com, it will clear up these unfortunate misconceptions very comprehensively.

[Watch]

I heard rumors that she did not believe in equal rights for arabs and jews, is that true?

I used to think positively of her but now neutral till I research her views bit further.

She was a non-secular Jewish woman.
She called "some" Arabs savages for their totalitarian brutality.
Your research must be filled with non-sequiturs or something.

[JuicyG]

She was a non-secular Jewish woman.
She called "some" Arabs savages for their totalitarian brutality.
Your research must be filled with non-sequiturs or something.

She might have been little biased, but having some truth to back her claims though. Arabs were indeed less advanced as many Israelis came there from industrialized and modern European countries. I see it though as a cultural and religious clash, nothing more, nothing less.
One could argue there was some interventionism involved, as Israel was founded mainly on religious grounds, not on purely rational grounds so to speak. There were several places discussed for the creation of Israel. Even the idea of an island was discussed. Territory of Palestine was finally chosen due to religious considerations. Ayn Rand, a self described objective rationalist might have argued against that choice.

I wouldn`t hold it against her though. We`re all biased when it comes to personal sensitive issues.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

[heavenlyboy34]

You misunderstood me... I'm not saying Rand is the greatest author. Frankly, she's a GREAT author, but she isn't the GREATEST. I don't care about her sentence structure or the development of her characters even a fraction as much as I care about the content of her novels and the story arcs. On sheer content, theme and an ability to enrapture the reader, Atlas Shrugged succeeds in ways few other stories ever have. To me, that is high literature.

Shakespeare's content is dreary. Why would I want to read about a bunch of barbaric human beings killing and slandering one another in the name of collectivism and raging adolescent hormones? The Twilight saga does a fairly good job of summing up most of Shakespeare. And his characters? They aren't even one dimensional, they're half dimensional. Just because he has nice prose doesn't make him a great author. He wrote for the stage in a pre-industrial society lacking electronics and amplification... lines had to be delivered with extra ridiculous bravado.

Jules Verne on the other hand is great! He's an amazing author and I've enjoyed everything I ever got my hands on. But he doesn't compare to Ayn Rand, and he never wrote anything approaching the epic scope of Atlas Shrugged. He wasn't much of a philosopher, except for being a little bit of a socialist.

Cool, we agree then. Where we part is the importance of developed characters. It's usually characters that make or break a story. As to Shakespeare, he didn't just write for the stage. There's loads of poetry and prose in the Shakespeare canon. I learned about sonnets from Shakespeare. :) He also did some rather epic poetry (Venus and Adonis), which shouldn't be dismissed IMO. Epic poems are really important in Western literature (Think Homer and Pushkin). You're right about Verne too. What do you think of Tolstoy's epic stuff? Tolstoy considered himself a philosopher/teacher/preacher (though a religious one, as opposed to a secular/atheist like Rand) particularly further into his writing career.

[ShaneEnochs]

So is the book an easy read, or is it horribly written? Even if the content is amazing, I hate reading anything that's worded weird or difficult to read.

[JasonC]

Excluding some of the good dialogue/speeches, my favorite short quote from the book is:

"Who is John Galt?" (asks Dagny I think..) Then I believe it is Francisco who says, ""John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains—and he withdrew his fire—until the day when men withdraw their vultures."

[Davy Crockett]

Russian Jewess "Ayn Rand" was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1905.

1. Murray Rothbard's wife, Joey was a Christian. When Rosenbaum found out, she demanded that Joey give up her religion within six months or divorce Rothbard. Rothbard, an agnostic himself, dropped Rosenbaum and had nothing more to do with her. ("Ayn Rand's" real life was filled with broken relationships.)

2. "Rand" found her ideal of a Nietzschean über-man in William Hickman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman), a psychopathic rapist and murderer of a 12-year-old girl in 1927 whom Hickman proceeded to dismember and mail back in pieces to the police as a taunt.



"He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman," Rand wrote of the character she modeled on Hickman for a play. "He is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness—resulting from the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning or importance of other people." And of the psychopath himself, Rand gushed that Hickman was an "amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."


3. Rosenbaum's ideas help to create the destructive "me generation" attitudes in Americans, which undermined our good nature towards one another, weakened our communities. Rosenbaum taught us to be selfish and "independent", meaning without any sense of social responsibility or communal cohesion.

If you want a better understanding of the idea of Man and Superman, I recommend George Bernard Shaw's play by that name, especially act three.

If you are looking for a proven personal philosophy that will result in a better world for all of us, I highly recommend Henry Ford's, My Life and Work and My Philosophy of Industry, not from the mind of a twisted woman who also said that "Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people."

[JuicyG]

Russian Jewess "Ayn Rand" was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1905.

1. Murray Rothbard's wife, Joey was a Christian. When Rosenbaum found out, she demanded that Joey give up her religion within six months or divorce Rothbard. Rothbard, an agnostic himself, dropped Rosenbaum and had nothing more to do with her. ("Ayn Rand's" real life was filled with broken relationships.)

2. "Rand" found her ideal of a Nietzschean über-man in William Hickman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman), a psychopathic rapist and murderer of a 12-year-old girl in 1927 whom Hickman proceeded to dismember and mail back in pieces to the police as a taunt.



"He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman," Rand wrote of the character she modeled on Hickman for a play. "He is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness—resulting from the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning or importance of other people." And of the psychopath himself, Rand gushed that Hickman was an "amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."

3. Rosenbaum's ideas help to create the destructive "me generation" attitudes in Americans, which undermined our good nature towards one another, weakened our communities. Rosenbaum taught us to be selfish and "independent", meaning without any sense of social responsibility or communal cohesion.

If you want a better understanding of the idea of Man and Superman, I recommend George Bernard Shaw's play by that name, especially act three.

If you are looking for a proven personal philosophy that will result in a better world for all of us, I highly recommend Henry Ford's, My Life and Work and My Philosophy of Industry, not from the mind of a twisted woman who also said that "Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people."

Well, well. I see we have a Stormfront member here.

Why da` hell does it matter that she`s Jewish, that you have to make a big deal out of it and present her family tree?

Guess you`re a libertarian, right? Pftt.

Henry Ford? You mean the nazi simpatizer Henry Ford?

[Cleaner44]

I love the book and enjoyed the movie too.

[CaptUSA]

So is the book an easy read, or is it horribly written? Even if the content is amazing, I hate reading anything that's worded weird or difficult to read.Good question... I'd say it's fairly easy to understand. You're not going to have to figure out any language quirks. However, unless you have patience and read a lot, you may drift off. She really hammers home her points. Again, and again.

My advice is to buy it and begin reading it. Take your time. It's not something you want read in one sitting. You want to take her thoughts and examine them as you go along.

Personally, I like the Fountainhead better. The story is not as good, but the character development is better. You come away from the Fountainhead wanting to meet a man like Howard Roarke.

[VBRonPaulFan]

So is the book an easy read, or is it horribly written? Even if the content is amazing, I hate reading anything that's worded weird or difficult to read.

it's not that hard of a read, but you'll probably re-read things quite a few times in the book to fully understand what's being said.

[FreeTraveler]

Read it a chapter or so at a time. It's pretty rich food. Let it settle between bites or you'll get indigestion.

[Jtorsella]

I read the entire last section in three days and the last two in ten. I had a lot of time on my hands. The hardest part is the John Galt speech.

[Davy Crockett]

Well, well. I see we have a Stormfront member here.

Why da` hell does it matter that she`s Jewish, that you have to make a big deal out of it and present her family tree?

Guess you`re a libertarian, right? Pftt.

Henry Ford? You mean the nazi simpatizer Henry Ford?

Why does it upset you when I simply state her ethnicity? I am not a member of Stormfront.

Edsel Ford, Henry's son took over the Ford Motor Company in 1919, and Ford chief of operations was Harry Bennet during the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1930s Henry Ford suffered several strokes and was nothing more then a figurehead at that time.

The two books that I recommended were written in the early 1920s that Americans never read anymore. The Japanese, knowing the value of what Henry Ford had to say about the production of automobiles in particular and industry in general, used Ford's ideas to become an industrial powerhouse themselves starting in the 1970s.

Much of the negative things said against Henry Ford does not fit the man that many knew. When Henry Ford found out that George Washington Carver was too ill to walk up the steps to his bedroom, Henry paid for a mechanical lift to help out his long time friend. When blacks at his River Rouge Plant (the largest in the world at the time) could not find housing, Henry founded Inkster, Michigan for them. Ford help build numerous schools, hospitals, colleges, parks, and museums for the benefit of his fellow Americans.

Here is just one example:

Berry College


Martha Berry, who created this educational institution to serve rural mountain children, had a vision that did not die when she did. Martha Berry chose to never marry, instead dedicating her life to the education of the poor mountain children for whom she had such great educational goals.

Not only was her life exemplary in its philanthropic orientation, but her dedication inspired multiple donations from well known industrialists such as Henry Ford. There is now a whole complex of amazing buildings called the Ford buildings.

One of the stories I heard growing up in Rome, Georgia was that Henry Ford gave Martha Berry a minimal donation and said that he would give more if she could show good stewardship of that donation.

She chose to use the money to buy seeds for planting a crop, and as everyone knows the multiplication power of a few seeds can be tremendous. The story goes that he was so impressed by her feat that he decided to give a major donation resulting in the Ford Center buildings. Whether the story is true or not is not as important as the fact that she was able to impress others to share her dreams.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WlsNAYdxQKA/TJ-lR7kT16I/AAAAAAAAAGo/No0bv6w3LzA/s1600/Henry+Ford+Complex%252C+Berry+College%252C+Rome%25 2C+GA.jpg

Charges that Henry Ford was a "Nazi" is laughable once a person becomes aware Ford's insistence on giving an honest man's wages to the physically impaired for honest work.

From My Life and Work, Ford writes:


In a previous chapter I noted that no one applying for work is refused on account of physical condition. This policy went into effect on January 12, 1914, at the time of setting the minimum wage at five dollars a day and the working day at eight hours. It carried with it the further condition that no one should be discharged on account of physical condition, except, of course, in the case of contagious disease. I think that if an industrial institution is to fill its whole role, it ought to be possible for a cross-section of its employees to show about the same proportions as a cross-section of a society in general. We have always with us the maimed and the halt. There is a most generous disposition to regard all of these people who are physically incapacitated for labour as a charge on society and to support them by charity. There are cases where I imagine that the support must be by charity—as, for instance, an idiot. But those cases are extraordinarily rare, and we have found it possible, among the great number of different tasks that must be performed somewhere in the company, to find an opening for almost any one and on the basis of production. The blind man or cripple can, in the particular place to which he is assigned, perform just as much work and receive exactly the same pay as a wholly able-bodied man would. We do not prefer cripples—but we have demonstrated that they can earn full wages.

It would be quite outside the spirit of what we are trying to do, to take on men because they were crippled, pay them a lower wage, and be content with a lower output. That might be directly helping the men but it would not be helping them in the best way. The best way is always the way by which they can be put on a productive par with able-bodied men. I believe that there is very little occasion for charity in this world—that is, charity in the sense of making gifts. Most certainly business and charity cannot be combined; the purpose of a factory is to produce, and it ill serves the community in general unless it does produce to the utmost of its capacity. We are too ready to assume without investigation that the full possession of faculties is a condition requisite to the best performance of all jobs. To discover just what was the real situation, I had all of the different jobs in the factory classified to the kind of machine and work—whether the physical labour involved was light, medium, or heavy; whether it were a wet or a dry job, and if not, with what kind of fluid; whether it were clean or dirty; near an oven or a furnace; the condition of the air; whether one or both hands had to be used; whether the employee stood or sat down at his work; whether it was noisy or quiet; whether it required accuracy; whether the light was natural or artificial; the number of pieces that had to be handled per hour; the weight of the material handled; and the description of the strain upon the worker. It turned out at the time of the inquiry that there were then 7,882 different jobs in the factory. Of these, 949 were classified as heavy work requiring strong, able-bodied, and practically physically perfect men; 3,338 required men of ordinary physical development and strength. The remaining 3,595 jobs were disclosed as requiring no physical exertion and could be performed by the slightest, weakest sort of men. In fact, most of them could be satisfactorily filled by women or older children. The lightest jobs were again classified to discover how many of them required the use of full faculties, and we found that 670 could be filled by legless men, 2,637 by one-legged men, 2 by armless men, 715 by one-armed men, and 10 by blind men. Therefore, out of 7,882 kinds of jobs, 4,034—although some of them required strength—did not require full physical capacity. That is, developed industry can provide wage work for a higher average of standard men than are ordinarily included in any normal community. If the jobs in any one industry or, say, any one factory, were analyzed as ours have been analyzed, the proportion might be very different, yet I am quite sure that if work is sufficiently subdivided—subdivided to the point of highest economy—there will be no dearth of places in which the physically incapacitated can do a man's job and get a man's wage. It is economically most wasteful to accept crippled men as charges and then to teach them trivial tasks like the weaving of baskets or some other form of unremunerative hand labour, in the hope, not of aiding them to make a living, but of preventing despondency.

When a man is taken on by the Employment Department, the theory is to put him into a job suited to his condition. If he is already at work and he does not seem able to perform the work, or if he does not like his work, he is given a transfer card, which he takes up to the transfer department, and after an examination he is tried out in some other work more suited to his condition or disposition. Those who are below the ordinary physical standards are just as good workers, rightly placed, as those who are above. For instance, a blind man was assigned to the stock department to count bolts and nuts for shipment to branch establishments. Two other able-bodied men were already employed on this work. In two days the foreman sent a note to the transfer department releasing the able-bodied men because the blind man was able to do not only his own work but also the work that had formerly been done by the sound men.

This salvage can be carried further. It is usually taken for granted that when a man is injured he is simply out of the running and should be paid an allowance. But there is always a period of convalescence, especially in fracture cases, where the man is strong enough to work, and, indeed, by that time usually anxious to work, for the largest possible accident allowance can never be as great as a man's wage. If it were, then a business would simply have an additional tax put upon it, and that tax would show up in the cost of the product. There would be less buying of the product and therefore less work for somebody. That is an inevitable sequence that must always be borne in mind.

We have experimented with bedridden men—men who were able to sit up. We put black oilcloth covers or aprons over the beds and set the men to work screwing nuts on small bolts. This is a job that has to be done by hand and on which fifteen or twenty men are kept busy in the Magneto Department. The men in the hospital could do it just as well as the men in the shop and they were able to receive their regular wages. In fact, their production was about 20 per cent., I believe, above the usual shop production. No man had to do the work unless he wanted to. But they all wanted to. It kept time from hanging on their hands. They slept and ate better and recovered more rapidly.

No particular consideration has to be given to deaf-and-dumb employees. They do their work one hundred per cent. The tubercular employees—and there are usually about a thousand of them—mostly work in the material salvage department. Those cases which are considered contagious work together in an especially constructed shed. The work of all of them is largely out of doors.

At the time of the last analysis of employed, there were 9,563 sub-standard men. Of these, 123 had crippled or amputated arms, forearms, or hands. One had both hands off. There were 4 totally blind men, 207 blind in one eye, 253 with one eye nearly blind, 37 deaf and dumb, 60 epileptics, 4 with both legs or feet missing, 234 with one foot or leg missing. The others had minor impediments.

The shallow philosophy of Ayn Rand will leave tens of thousands of physically impaired people out on the streets to fend for themselves.

Henry Ford, arguably the finest American of the 20th century, found a way for those less fortunate then ourselves to earn an honest living instead of relying on welfare. The Libertarian revolution in America will get nowhere until they understand and accept Henry Ford's philosophy of industry.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I read the entire last section in three days and the last two in ten. I had a lot of time on my hands. The hardest most boring part is the John Galt speech.

Fixed it for ya.

[heavenlyboy34]

The shallow philosophy of Ayn Rand will leave tens of thousands of physically impaired people out on the streets to fend for themselves.

Henry Ford, arguably the finest American of the 20th century, found a way for those less fortunate then ourselves to earn an honest living instead of relying on welfare. The Libertarian revolution in America will get nowhere until they understand and accept Henry Ford's philosophy of industry.
Care to elaborate? I'm not that familiar with Objectivism yet, so I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion (with citations from Objectivist literature, if possible).

[Jtorsella]

Fixed it for ya.
Lol that's what I meant.

[JuicyG]

Why does it upset you when I simply state her ethnicity?

Because I don`t see why that`s relevant in discussing her work, mainly this book.

You enter this thread and do character assassination BS, citing her being Jewish and her russian-jewish name like it`s some relevant detail to one`s persona everyone should know. Like you peel off some cover to reveal some "ugly thruth". You make no specific mention to her book but you opt to attack her private life to denigrate her book and make it look useless.

You have no clue what libertarian means.

[JuicyG]

double post

[Davy Crockett]

Because I don`t see why that`s relevant in discussing her work, mainly this book.

You enter this thread and do character assassination BS, citing her being Jewish and her russian-jewish name like it`s some relevant detail to one`s persona everyone should know. Like you peel off some cover to reveal some "ugly thruth". You make no specific mention to her book but you opt to attack her private life to denigrate her book and make it look useless.

You have no clue what libertarian means.

Ayn Rand was a hypocrite, on one hand she states: “I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me, nor did I think at any time that it was anyone’s duty to help me.” The premise of the book expands on this, in essence demonizing any personal, unselfish acts of altruism or charity, and calling for the overthrow of any government which enacts social welfare programs for the needy, underprivileged, or even mentally/physically disabled. Yet, Ayn Rand herself cashed-in on Social Security (welfare) benefits and was a recipient of Medicare and public aid later in life, when she became afflicted with lung cancer. She reaped the benefits of these services, however, under another name – and through a legal agency.

We Americans are, on the average, more individualistic than members of other cultures. We value privacy more. We admire individual accomplishment more. We respect the right of dissent more. We are not happy in the one-big-family or ant-heap style of existence which seems natural to Asians or Africans. We cherish our individual liberties, our freedom from religious, social and governmental constraints more. We look at the world more as individuals than as members of a group.

Complementing this individualism, we have a more impersonal and highly developed altruism and a greater sense of responsibility for the world around us. Concern for the preservation of redwoods and whales and spotted owls, revulsion toward cruelty to animals, opposition to the killing of magnificent jungle cats so that rich women can adorn themselves in their skins may be characteristic of only a minority of our people -- but these concerns are, for all practical purposes, unique to Americans and Europeans. Despite the shortcomings we have had in this regard -- and which all too many of us still have -- there would be no environmental movement anywhere were it not for us.

Our ideal is a highly developed sense of individuality combined with a sense of responsibility for the world around us. Unfortunately, in some people these two elements are not in balance: in them individualism has remained in the infantile stage of egoism, and a sense of responsibility to anyone or anything except themselves has failed to develop. There has been a large growth in the number of such cases during the period of permissiveness which began after the Second World War, and because of this individualism has become a destructive ideology.

Actually, individualism is more a mind-set or an attitude than a well-defined ideology. The same "Me Generation" attitude is expressed in the flood of "self-development" books on the newsstands, offering the reader recipes for developing a more "assertive" personality and "getting what you want," as well as in the novels of Ayn Rand. One of individualism's crassest spokesmen in the postwar period has been Harry Browne, author of several best-selling "I'm the only one who matters" self-development books in the 1970s. In How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, Browne asserts:



A free person doesn't try to remake the world....He merely appraises every situation by the simple standard: Is this what I want for myself? If it isn't, he looks elsewhere. If it is he relaxes and enjoys it....You can enslave yourself by assuming a responsibility to observe, judge, and correct any social problems. For the problems will continue indefinitely.....But through them all, free men in any country have found ways of living their lives freely and happily without feeling a responsibility to be involved.

[JuicyG]

Ayn Rand was a hypocrite, on one hand she states: “I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me, nor did I think at any time that it was anyone’s duty to help me.” The premise of the book expands on this, in essence demonizing any personal, unselfish acts of altruism or charity, and calling for the overthrow of any government which enacts social welfare programs for the needy, underprivileged, or even mentally/physically disabled. Yet, Ayn Rand herself cashed-in on Social Security (welfare) benefits and was a recipient of Medicare and public aid later in life, when she became afflicted with lung cancer. She reaped the benefits of these services, however, under another name – and through a legal agency.



So if you pay taxes anyways where`s the problem in getting something back? If state steals from you, I don`t see a problem in getting some back.
Also, I don`t see a problem with refusing welfare and making a stand either. But if it`s wasted effort, the money will go to other idiotic BS so in some cases you might as well take it. Therefore I don`t agree with you on this.

Ron Paul was attacked for getting some of the taxes back, earmarks, which is stupid because those funds were being distributed anyways. He voted against earmarks but used them in order to give some of the tax back to the people. Some attacked him on this issue: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks

So, you see, your argument is not rock solid at all. If state steals taxes and wants to give some back, might as well take some back.


Complementing this individualism, we have a more impersonal and highly developed altruism and a greater sense of responsibility for the world around us. Concern for the preservation of redwoods and whales and spotted owls, revulsion toward cruelty to animals, opposition to the killing of magnificent jungle cats so that rich women can adorn themselves in their skins may be characteristic of only a minority of our people -- but these concerns are, for all practical purposes, unique to Americans and Europeans. Despite the shortcomings we have had in this regard -- and which all too many of us still have -- there would be no environmental movement anywhere were it not for us.
Guess you never heard of Buddhist religion, philosophy and their peaceful attitude towards nature or never heard of Indian philosophy.
There are Buddhist monks who think it`s outrageous to kill even an insect. In Christian faith, it was Jesus who championed the idea of mercy and compassion as a virtue. You might find interesting that his ideas might have had oriental roots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_years_of_Jesus
Worth watching this Buddhist woman talking about compassion: http://www.ted.com/talks/joan_halifax.html Pretty extreme by most standards. You won`t see compassion taken to such extremes in other religion than Buddhism.

[Shorty Dawkins]

I read the entire last section in three days and the last two in ten. I had a lot of time on my hands. The hardest part is the John Galt speech.

The huge John Galt speech is the toughest part of the book. I skipped it and came back to it on the first reading. I find the speech to be repetitive, but necessary to hammer home the hole point she is making.
On another matter, Ayn Rand, as a person, was not my kind of person. So what, it is her work that blew me away. It is totally amazing. I would encourage anyone to read it. You will see strong parallels to today; to the last fifty years, for that matter. She saw it coming and it is here.

[heavenlyboy34]

The huge John Galt speech is the toughest part of the book. I skipped it and came back to it on the first reading. I find the speech to be repetitive, but necessary to hammer home the hole point she is making.
On another matter, Ayn Rand, as a person, was not my kind of person. So what, it is her work that blew me away. It is totally amazing. I would encourage anyone to read it. You will see strong parallels to today; to the last fifty years, for that matter. She saw it coming and it is here. True that. She stood on the shoulders of giants, though, so she had an advantage over most.

[Xenophage]

They are all fantastic, but I'd have to say I found The Fountainhead to be the most enjoyable of the lot.

I totally agree. The Fountainhead was a better story, and it even made for a decent movie. I loved the characters of Ellsworth Toohey and Gail Wynand, and one of my favorite moments is when Ellsworth Toohey (the villain for those who haven't read) asks Howard Roark (the hero), "It's just the two of us here now. Why don't you tell me what you think of me?" and Roark responds, "But I don't think of you." OWNED.

The Fountainhead ranked higher on my list of favorite books than Atlas Shrugged in terms of sheer enjoyment. But Atlas Shrugged is just a behemoth of a book and touches on so many fascinating themes.

[Xenophage]

The huge John Galt speech is the toughest part of the book. I skipped it and came back to it on the first reading. I find the speech to be repetitive, but necessary to hammer home the hole point she is making.
On another matter, Ayn Rand, as a person, was not my kind of person. So what, it is her work that blew me away. It is totally amazing. I would encourage anyone to read it. You will see strong parallels to today; to the last fifty years, for that matter. She saw it coming and it is here.

Ayn Rand was a snarky bitch... at least, from what i gather. Who knows? Maybe she was a lot cooler than people give her credit for.

But she was still a genius, and I wish I could have met her.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ayn Rand was a snarky bitch... at least, from what i gather. Who knows? Maybe she was a lot cooler than people give her credit for.

But she was still a genius, and I wish I could have met her.
+1 she probably would've thoroughly disliked me though, a damned libertarian. ;)

[Xenophage]

Care to elaborate? I'm not that familiar with Objectivism yet, so I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion (with citations from Objectivist literature, if possible).

This is a good brief introduction written by Ayn herself:

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

Metaphysics - Objective Reality
Epistemology - Reason
Ethics - Self-interest
Politics - Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics .

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute —facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge , his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man —every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism . It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders , by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights ; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

[Xenophage]

+1 she probably would've thoroughly disliked me though, a damned libertarian. ;)

Same, even though I share all of her primary convictions, with various reservations and disagreements arising more on the particulars and details.

[Xenophage]

+1 she probably would've thoroughly disliked me though, a damned libertarian. ;)

Also, believe it or not... one of my very good friends is a flaming anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard lover who never votes. But he has a big ol' picture of Ayn Rand in his living room and calls himself an objectivist!

It's interesting, because Galt's Gulch is really an anarchist society that she outlined in Atlas Shrugged, but she would never admit to being an anarchist.

[Carehn]

Also, believe it or not... one of my very good friends is a flaming anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard lover who never votes. But he has a big ol' picture of Ayn Rand in his living room and calls himself an objectivist!

It's interesting, because Galt's Gulch is really an anarchist society that she outlined in Atlas Shrugged, but she would never admit to being an anarchist.

I have noticed that. I can't for the life of me understand the heated split between some of these people. I have looked. If you know of any info on why the big hubub about libertarians anarchists objectovists let me know.

[Xenophage]

I have noticed that. I can't for the life of me understand the heated split between some of these people. I have looked. If you know of any info on why the big hubub about libertarians anarchists objectovists let me know.

Some late night google marathons should sate your appetite for information on this. Don't head to just one source, though. There are two sides to every story. Basically, though, it's long and complicated and has more to do with personality conflicts than any actual philosophic or ideological disagreement.

The only real fundamental philosophical disagreement is this: Minarchy or Anarchy!? As someone who lives here on RPF, I'm sure you understand that this argument gets plenty of otherwise-allies all riled up and at each other's throats!

I'm a minarchist (read: evil statist state-worshipper that likes force and aggression and kicking puppies by voting for the state to kick the puppies for me, with their jackboots) who loves anarcho-capitalists. I've gone back and forth on the whole minarchy/anarchy thing in the past. I reside in minarchy land right now, but I know minarchists and anarchists are more allies than enemies.

Long story short, Rand said some really stupid, bitchy things about libertarians back when all of the libertarians in the world met up once a week for tea (and maybe some weed) in their neighborhood tree house. The ARI has taken the hardline, "libertarians are lefties because they are anarchists and anarchists are stupid assholes, which means they are lefties," position. Many libertarians responded in kind by saying that Ayn Rand was a bitch who stole all of her ideas from other people that were smarter than her and she never had an original thought to save her life.

Obviously both of those positions are nonsense.

Obviously we all believe in liberty.

Obviously we should all stop the bullshit, at least once in a while when Ron Paul is running for president. Thank you.

[Carehn]

Some late night google marathons should sate your appetite for information on this. Don't head to just one source, though. There are two sides to every story. Basically, though, it's long and complicated and has more to do with personality conflicts than any actual philosophic or ideological disagreement.

The only real fundamental philosophical disagreement is this: Minarchy or Anarchy!? As someone who lives here on RPF, I'm sure you understand that this argument gets plenty of otherwise-allies all riled up and at each other's throats!

I'm a minarchist (read: evil statist state-worshipper that likes force and aggression and kicking puppies by voting for the state to kick the puppies for me, with their jackboots) who loves anarcho-capitalists. I've gone back and forth on the whole minarchy/anarchy thing in the past. I reside in minarchy land right now, but I know minarchists and anarchists are more allies than enemies.

Long story short, Rand said some really stupid, bitchy things about libertarians back when all of the libertarians in the world met up once a week for tea (and maybe some weed) in their neighborhood tree house. The ARI has taken the hardline, "libertarians are lefties because they are anarchists and anarchists are stupid assholes, which means they are lefties," position. Many libertarians responded in kind by saying that Ayn Rand was a bitch who stole all of her ideas from other people that were smarter than her and she never had an original thought to save her life.

Obviously both of those positions are nonsense.

Obviously we all believe in liberty.

Obviously we should all stop the bullshit, at least once in a while when Ron Paul is running for president. Thank you.

This is always what I thought it was about, but I also felt there had to be something more. Guess not. My own theory is Ayn and Rothbard got it on at one point in time and then they did what some people do and started hating each other. Just a theory. But I do know each side has vowed never to invite the other to their birthday partys ever again.

[Liberty4life]

Why don't you all post some good lines from the book, I haven't read it but I hope to soon.

[heavenlyboy34]

Also, believe it or not... one of my very good friends is a flaming anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard lover who never votes. But he has a big ol' picture of Ayn Rand in his living room and calls himself an objectivist!

It's interesting, because Galt's Gulch is really an anarchist society that she outlined in Atlas Shrugged, but she would never admit to being an anarchist.
Doesn't surprise me, really. Stef Molyneux himself is a Rand fanboy. Rothbard also liked "Atlas". (I like it too in many ways) Would your objectivist/anarchist friend accept EVERYTHING in Rand's philosophy, though? Rand, as I understand her, insisted that all aspects of Objectivism must be accepted for it to work-all or nothing. (that is, one can't pick and choose which parts to accept) IIRC, this is one of the problems that she had with Objectivist libertarians-they didn't completely embrace Objectivism.

[heavenlyboy34]

Some late night google marathons should sate your appetite for information on this. Don't head to just one source, though. There are two sides to every story. Basically, though, it's long and complicated and has more to do with personality conflicts than any actual philosophic or ideological disagreement.

The only real fundamental philosophical disagreement is this: Minarchy or Anarchy!? As someone who lives here on RPF, I'm sure you understand that this argument gets plenty of otherwise-allies all riled up and at each other's throats!

I'm a minarchist (read: evil statist state-worshipper that likes force and aggression and kicking puppies by voting for the state to kick the puppies for me, with their jackboots) who loves anarcho-capitalists. I've gone back and forth on the whole minarchy/anarchy thing in the past. I reside in minarchy land right now, but I know minarchists and anarchists are more allies than enemies.

Long story short, Rand said some really stupid, bitchy things about libertarians back when all of the libertarians in the world met up once a week for tea (and maybe some weed) in their neighborhood tree house. The ARI has taken the hardline, "libertarians are lefties because they are anarchists and anarchists are stupid assholes, which means they are lefties," position. Many libertarians responded in kind by saying that Ayn Rand was a bitch who stole all of her ideas from other people that were smarter than her and she never had an original thought to save her life.

Obviously both of those positions are nonsense.

Obviously we all believe in liberty.

Obviously we should all stop the bullshit, at least once in a while when Ron Paul is running for president. Thank you.
+1 The principle of micro-secession, if applied rationally, would allow these sort of factions to live peacefully together and the disagreements would become civil and academic for the most part.

[Xenophage]

Doesn't surprise me, really. Stef Molyneux himself is a Rand fanboy. Rothbard also liked "Atlas". (I like it too in many ways) Would your objectivist/anarchist friend accept EVERYTHING in Rand's philosophy, though? Rand, as I understand her, insisted that all aspects of Objectivism must be accepted for it to work-all or nothing. (that is, one can't pick and choose which parts to accept) IIRC, this is one of the problems that she had with Objectivist libertarians-they didn't completely embrace Objectivism.

Nobody I've ever met accepts Objectivism in its entirety, without reservation, so according to Rand she was the only Objectivist! Well, once you're already committed to disagreeing with Ayn Rand, you can disagree with that particular sentiment as well ;) Most Nihilists I've ever met wouldn't agree with absolutely everything Nietzsche said. Most Absolutists I've ever met don't agree with everything Kant ever said. Most Utilitarians don't agree with everything J.S. Mill ever said.

I would say basically that in order to be an objectivist you should accept the three core tenants:
1. Logic
2. Rational self-interest
3. Freedom

So you can't be a Christian objectivist. Being an atheist is pretty much a requirement. Politically you need to be a libertarian. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with Ayn Rand on the basis of sex, the morality of art, whether or not it's okay to associate myself with people I disagree with (read about how Atlas Society founder David Kelly was excommunicated by Leonard Peikoff for speaking at a libertarian book club!), whether or not homosexuality is evil, ETC.

[JuicyG]

Most Nihilists I've ever met wouldn't agree with absolutely everything Nietzsche said.

Nihilism is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life

Calling Nietzsche nihilist is like calling Paul isolationist. He was never a nihilist.

Nihilists are all the post-modernist atheists who don`t believe in higher purpose in life other than futility of this existence and some form of hedonism.

Nietzsche was never about that. He spoke about a philosophy of life, one that should transcend current morality that destroyed the values of life and go beyond good and evil. He saw current morality as one of death and renunciation.
He opposed nihilism actually. He thought life should be joyful be achieving your full potential.

Ayn Rand was very influenced by Nietzsche as he envisioned a new man unbound by chains of conventional morality. Best defining words of this idea, I believe, can be found in this quote: "A man's maturity consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play."

[Xenophage]

Calling Nietzsche nihilist is like calling Paul isolationist. He was never a nihilist.

Nihilists are all the post-modernist atheists who don`t believe in higher purpose in life other than futility of this existence and some form of hedonism.

Nietzsche was never about that. He spoke about a philosophy of life, one that should transcend current morality that destroyed the values of life and go beyond good and evil. He saw current morality as one of death and renunciation.
He opposed nihilism actually. He thought life should be joyful be achieving your full potential.

Ayn Rand was very influenced by Nietzsche as he envisioned a new man unbound by chains of conventional morality. Best defining words of this idea, I believe, can be found in this quote: "A man's maturity consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play."

I don't agree. Yes, he had some good things to say, and yes he influenced Ayn Rand a great deal, which she acknowledged. He was an individualist and he often wrote about personal happiness.

But he decried reason and wrote in Will to Power that you cannot know reality, because reality doesn't exist. He said there are no objective standards of morality, and there are no good or evil motives or purposes. Therefore his claim that "Man is an end in himself," that all people should pursue happiness, was quite different from the objectivist view of rational self-interest. Nietzsche *was* a bit of a hedonist, at least in theory. He didn't believe in right or wrong, he didn't believe in any overriding purpose or value in life that could be objectively identified except, "what feels good." He even personally acknowledged being a nihilist, even while he wrote that he was concerned about nihilism as a destroyer of Western Civilization.

Contrast that with Rand. Ayn Rand's idea of rational self-interest acknowledges that in order to achieve personal happiness, you have to deal with reality through logic, and certain standards of moral behavior always apply. To an objectivist, human life and happiness are absolute moral values, and reason and honesty are moral values. Being a mass-murderer and pathological liar is irrational and self-destructive. Certain objective values are always good. Productive achievement is the most noble purpose you can aspire to. Rand was totally at odds with Nietzsche regarding morality and the purpose of life, even though they were both strongly pro-individual, and Rand liked to quote some of Nietzsche's more inspirational stuff.

[JuicyG]

I don't agree. Yes, he had some good things to say, and yes he influenced Ayn Rand a great deal, which she acknowledged. He was an individualist and he often wrote about personal happiness.

But he decried reason and wrote in Will to Power that you cannot know reality, because reality doesn't exist. He said there are no objective standards of morality, and there are no good or evil motives or purposes. Therefore his claim that "Man is an end in himself," that all people should pursue happiness, was quite different from the objectivist view of rational self-interest. Nietzsche *was* a bit of a hedonist, at least in theory. He didn't believe in right or wrong, he didn't believe in any overriding purpose or value in life that could be objectively identified except, "what feels good." He even personally acknowledged being a nihilist, even while he wrote that he was concerned about nihilism as a destroyer of Western Civilization.

Contrast that with Rand. Ayn Rand's idea of rational self-interest acknowledges that in order to achieve personal happiness, you have to deal with reality through logic, and certain standards of moral behavior always apply. To an objectivist, human life and happiness are absolute moral values, and reason and honesty are moral values. Being a mass-murderer and pathological liar is irrational and self-destructive. Certain objective values are always good. Productive achievement is the most noble purpose you can aspire to. Rand was totally at odds with Nietzsche regarding morality and the purpose of life, even though they were both strongly pro-individual, and Rand liked to quote some of Nietzsche's more inspirational stuff.


Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nietzsche was only a nihilist to the extent of purging old values in order to replace with new. Like emptying a cup in order to pour in it something else.
He was never a nihilist and that label is derogatory and insulting. Nihil=nothingness in latin. All post-modernist atheists with suicidal tendencies are nihilists. He was never one those. He strongly believed in the values of life in the absence of deities.

He was right about reality and morality and Rand was wrong in this respect. Rand believed there`s a truth out there which can be knowledgable to man. Morality is something very time based as Nietzsche believed. What`s right now was wrong in the past and what`s wrong now was right in the past. This also applies to geographical locations, it changes based on time and place. There is not fixed standard of values. Values change according to time because we as humans evolve. What was true yesterday may not be true today. Just think about how everyone believed at some point world was flat. Those who went against this idea were marginalized.

Nietzsche was never a hedonist. By the contrary. He had an iron will which most hedonist don`t have. People who often succumb to temptation are hedonists in my book, both in theory and practice.
There`s famous the incident when it was raining like crazy and he didn`t bother to step up the pace.
He believed the "heart" as he metaphorically put it "has reasons mind might not comprehend". Modern science proved him right. For example, the way we choose our partners involves a lot of unconscious process. Modern neurology proves that a lot of what`s going on in our brain as response to external stimuli is involuntary or unconscious thought process. This is why he claimed rationalism is wrong because denies this impulses and intuitions one has. Modern sciences proved brain is split in two parts, the irrational part is the one that mostly guides are decisions on day to day basis and play biggest role.
This is why I believe, like Nietzsche, that rationality is an illusion to certain extent. Only by acknowledging this we can act more rational. Rand`s personal life was full of apparently irrational contradictions. She was anything but rational in many of her decisions.

Very often we try to rationalize our behavior. We try to bring validation and justifications to the way we act and feel. In this sense he believed that mind is heart`s slave.

[noneedtoaggress]

Now on to Atlas Shrugged...

I am on part III right now. About 300 pages from finishing. IMO, how you view the book will depend on your beliefs going into it. What I mean is that it is going to be a more significant book to someone who finds these ideas to be new vs someone who is already a raging libertarian.

I think the reason this book was praised so much is because at the time it was released, these ideas were not popular, and not many people had exposure to them. So reading this book in 1957 while still fully indoctrinated by the state would have a "red pill" effect on many people, i.e. it would blow their mind. Basically, if I had read this book before studying any sort of work on the economics and ethics of private property, it would have probably changed my life.

While I am reading it, I am trying to put myself in the mindset of someone who has never read these ideas. When I do this, it is more apparent as to why this book was so important.

I am convinced that if everyone who's life was changed by Atlas Shrugged (1957) had read Human Action (1949) first, the impact of Atlas Shrugged would be much less. The genius of Atlas Shrugged was that it was in a novel form and easier to digest than something like Human Action, but still expressed the ideas very well (which is why imo Rothbard and Mises loved it so much).

In short, it is obviously an epic book and a very important contribution to the liberty movement. If you read it and are not blown away, it is probably because these ideas are nothing new to you.

Yeah I got this impression while reading it and it's part of the reason I lost interest in it after getting a chunk of the way through. That and I found I didn't particularly care about her describing minute details about a fictional room for pages. I even picked it up pretty early into when I first started exploring libertarianism and econ, but I found the non-fiction stuff I was reading at the time was much more engaging and directly applied to my purpose for reading in the first place.

The overall plot seems like an interesting enough fictional story, but yeah... I was far, far more blown away by the non-fiction AE and Austro-Libertarian works I was reading at the time :D

[Wesker1982]

That and I found I didn't particularly care about her describing minute details about a fictional room for pages.

Agreed. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought this. I have nothing against detail, but sometimes she goes too far.


I found the non-fiction stuff I was reading at the time was much more engaging and directly applied to my purpose for reading in the first place.

...but yeah... I was far, far more blown away by the non-fiction AE and Austro-Libertarian works I was reading at the time :D

Yeah, I think if someone gave me a choice between Atlas Shrugged and For a New Liberty, I would have been much more interested in FANL. Or even Economics in One Lesson.

[Jtorsella]

Yeah I got this impression while reading it and it's part of the reason I lost interest in it after getting a chunk of the way through. That and I found I didn't particularly care about her describing minute details about a fictional room for pages. I even picked it up pretty early into when I first started exploring libertarianism and econ, but I found the non-fiction stuff I was reading at the time was much more engaging and directly applied to my purpose for reading in the first place.

The overall plot seems like an interesting enough fictional story, but yeah... I was far, far more blown away by the non-fiction AE and Austro-Libertarian works I was reading at the time :D
Read Anthem, The Fountainhead, or We The Living. Shorter and more entertaining, and they will pump you up for Atlas.

[dbill27]

No respectable conservative, libertarian, or individualist, should go without reading atlas shrugged. If u need more motivation, Paul krugman thinks it's garbage.

[Xenophage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nietzsche was only a nihilist to the extent of purging old values in order to replace with new. Like emptying a cup in order to pour in it something else.
He was never a nihilist and that label is derogatory and insulting. Nihil=nothingness in latin. All post-modernist atheists with suicidal tendencies are nihilists. He was never one those. He strongly believed in the values of life in the absence of deities.

He was right about reality and morality and Rand was wrong in this respect. Rand believed there`s a truth out there which can be knowledgable to man. Morality is something very time based as Nietzsche believed. What`s right now was wrong in the past and what`s wrong now was right in the past. This also applies to geographical locations, it changes based on time and place. There is not fixed standard of values. Values change according to time because we as humans evolve. What was true yesterday may not be true today. Just think about how everyone believed at some point world was flat. Those who went against this idea were marginalized.

Nietzsche was never a hedonist. By the contrary. He had an iron will which most hedonist don`t have. People who often succumb to temptation are hedonists in my book, both in theory and practice.
There`s famous the incident when it was raining like crazy and he didn`t bother to step up the pace.
He believed the "heart" as he metaphorically put it "has reasons mind might not comprehend". Modern science proved him right. For example, the way we choose our partners involves a lot of unconscious process. Modern neurology proves that a lot of what`s going on in our brain as response to external stimuli is involuntary or unconscious thought process. This is why he claimed rationalism is wrong because denies this impulses and intuitions one has. Modern sciences proved brain is split in two parts, the irrational part is the one that mostly guides are decisions on day to day basis and play biggest role.
This is why I believe, like Nietzsche, that rationality is an illusion to certain extent. Only by acknowledging this we can act more rational. Rand`s personal life was full of apparently irrational contradictions. She was anything but rational in many of her decisions.

Very often we try to rationalize our behavior. We try to bring validation and justifications to the way we act and feel. In this sense he believed that mind is heart`s slave.

I could go through your whole post and rip it apart piece by piece, but you are essentially saying that you do not believe in logic, nor in the ability of the human mind to come to any meaningful understanding of reality. If you don't believe there is an objective truth that can be arrived at through deductive reasoning, what's the point of arguing with you?

Then, in the same paragraph that you say reality is unknowable, you claim that we know something about it through SCIENCE! Don't you understand how laughable that is?

Of course, in order to have survived as long as you have as a human being, you have had to acknowledge and deal with the cold hard facts of reality at least once in a while, so you probably know at some level that your Nietzschean philosophy is all really quite futile.

Reality is what is. What you feel and think doesn't change that. The people who thought the Earth was flat were WRONG. The Earth is really spherical (well, roughly spherical). The truth didn't change - people just had to discover it.

[madengr]

Read it. Do not watch the stupid movie. Read the God damn book. If your reading this and you haven't then just trust some random dude on the internet for a change and READ IT. You will thank me in a couple of months. Best book ever written, period!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ALySsPXt0

Yes, read the book first. I just watched the DVD (finally) and it was good; ignore the critics. I'm looking forward to the sequels.

Watching the movie won't spoil the book either.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't agree. Yes, he had some good things to say, and yes he influenced Ayn Rand a great deal, which she acknowledged. He was an individualist and he often wrote about personal happiness.

But he decried reason and wrote in Will to Power that you cannot know reality, because reality doesn't exist. He said there are no objective standards of morality, and there are no good or evil motives or purposes. Therefore his claim that "Man is an end in himself," that all people should pursue happiness, was quite different from the objectivist view of rational self-interest. Nietzsche *was* a bit of a hedonist, at least in theory. He didn't believe in right or wrong, he didn't believe in any overriding purpose or value in life that could be objectively identified except, "what feels good." He even personally acknowledged being a nihilist, even while he wrote that he was concerned about nihilism as a destroyer of Western Civilization.

Contrast that with Rand. Ayn Rand's idea of rational self-interest acknowledges that in order to achieve personal happiness, you have to deal with reality through logic, and certain standards of moral behavior always apply. To an objectivist, human life and happiness are absolute moral values, and reason and honesty are moral values. Being a mass-murderer and pathological liar is irrational and self-destructive. Certain objective values are always good. Productive achievement is the most noble purpose you can aspire to. Rand was totally at odds with Nietzsche regarding morality and the purpose of life, even though they were both strongly pro-individual, and Rand liked to quote some of Nietzsche's more inspirational stuff.
btw, here's some Neitzsche trivia for you-In Irving Wallace's "The Plot", the character Dietrich writes his memoirs-which portray the bumbling but loveable former president Emmet as a bumbling fool who basically fucked up everything possible while remaining popular with the public. When Emmett confronts Dietrich to ask him to revise the memoir to portray his presidency in a better light, Dietrich explains Emmett's epic idiocy (his advisor ran pretty much everything behind the scenes) and tells him to "read Neitzsche" after a severe tongue lashing. :cool: Wallace is a great author if you ever get a chance to read him. "The Plot" is roughly the length of "Atlas", and has a more brisk pace. :cool: It, like Atlas, should be taken in chunks because of its sheer epic-ness.

[noneedtoaggress]

Yeah, I think if someone gave me a choice between Atlas Shrugged and For a New Liberty, I would have been much more interested in FANL. Or even Economics in One Lesson.

Yeah after For A New Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp) and learning about praxeology I think I probably watered down whatever I would have gotten out of a fresh AS experience anyway from it being ground-shaking or insightful. It seems like a fun pro-market story, though.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I liked Anthem.