欧宝娱乐

Some external commentary:

, by Mallory Ortberg.

by Adam Lee.


Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Ayn Rand: How is she still a thing?

Thanks to , , HBO, and .

Thanks for the review and sharing your thoughts, Rick. But it's only a book. And, certainly not one to pattern your life around. We get a glimpse of Rand through her characters as a lot of writers let us do. One can rejoice in the great diversity of literature in the world. Try "The Audacity of Hope"

Excellent review. In reading the book, it feels like Rand is incapable of understanding anyone with emotions. I was wanting to understand her ideas about Objectivism but the characters and scenarios seem absurd, like something from another planet.

The Sufis have an ancient saying to the effect : That the value of other people is that they present us to ourselves. Nothing like a controversial novel to show us just who we are- or might not be.

Your illustration of "human reality" tells us something about you - but some people believe that emotions are merely a guide to action - but not the determining factor for our choices.

People leave others to chase a more " ideal " mate. It is a fact.
Is Reardon diminished any by Dagny leaving him?
Have you never left someone? Or did your regard for the emotions ( resentment, jealousy ) of your partner, and the guilt and regret that you might feel, keep you in a relationship that you no longer wanted- or stop you from trying to obtain a "greater value" in a person who more closely matches your ideal?

People start and leave relationships for much flimsier reasons and with far less introspection into their own motivations for doing so.

There could be no "middle class" without the Achievement of creators. No matter what Guilt laden label you might use to describe them (social Darwinists)

Laissez-faire capitalism has never truly been tried! there is always some non creator with his grubby little non-producing hands in the pie that he didn't make -trying to take what isn't his ( by guilt , coercion, or government manipulation) and " redistribute" it to those based on his perception of their need-it has always been taken ultimately, at the point of a gun, or sword, or guillotine, or some other form of diabolical and disguised enslavement (socialism, religion,government....).

The only difference is that Rand and her characters Knew it!

You show yourself, I show myself- all through one novel
perhaps you underestimate the value of the work?

Ed, you're welcome, but I must disagree that it's only a book. It also makes a fine doorstop.

Karl, thank you. I agree; Rand doesn't create human characters so much as she creates conduits for channeling her words.

Michael,

"Your illustration of "human reality" tells us something about you - but some people believe that emotions are merely a guide to action - but not the determining factor for our choices."

What my "illustration" says about me is that I'm a better observer of human nature than Ayn Rand was. Further, I neither stated nor implied that decisions should be based solely on emotion. That you would mount that strawman tells us something about you; it suggests you've been well indoctrinated into Ayn Rand's simpleminded worldview in which anyone who disagrees with her in any way must perforce fully embrace the entire suite of character flaws and intellectual evils that she ascribes to all of her "villains."

"Is Reardon diminished any by Dagny leaving him?"

If he loved her then yes, obviously. Even if he only wanted to use her for sex, the answer is still yes, though his diminution would be less.

"Or did your regard for the emotions ( resentment, jealousy ) of your partner, and the guilt and regret that you might feel, keep you in a relationship that you no longer wanted- or stop you from trying to obtain a "greater value" in a person who more closely matches your ideal?"

Another strawman. Apparently, you're assuming that my criticism of Rand's bizarre love triangle is based on the belief that Dagny should have stayed with Hank in order to spare his feelings, however, I never said that.

"There could be no "middle class" without the Achievement of creators. No matter what Guilt laden label you might use to describe them (social Darwinists)"

Strawman number three. I never said that all creators are social Darwinists, nor did I suggest that creators ought to feel guilt for their accomplishments. Once again, your biased assumption reveals the depth of your indoctrination.

In any case, Rand's beliefs regarding creators and their role in society are, in almost every respect, dead wrong. For one thing, she assumes that all creators in every field, be they businessmen, artists, engineers, musicians or scientists, essentially think in exactly the same way. Rand's way, of course. This is thoroughly naive; even within a single field there are broad ranges of ideals, motivations, talents and so forth. Equally naive is the notion that society is more dependent upon Rand's creator caste than upon the blue collar, middle class workers who raise the crops, drive the trucks and maintain the infrastructure. If the Steve Jobs' of the world went on indefinite strike, the impact on society would be minimal. If the Steve Forbes' of the world went on permanent hiatus, the impact would be nonexistent. If the trash collectors disappeared, western civilization would crumble within months. (Of course I'm making the absurd assumption that no one would take the striking garbagemen's place, just as Rand foolishly assumed that all of the world's creators would move in lockstep behind Galt, and that no one amongst the remaining masses would rise to the challenge of taking the strikers' places).

"Laissez-faire capitalism has never truly been tried! there is always some non creator with his grubby little non-producing hands in the pie that he didn't make -trying to take what isn't his ( by guilt , coercion, or government manipulation) and " redistribute" it to those based on his perception of their need-it has always been taken ultimately, at the point of a gun, or sword, or guillotine, or some other form of diabolical and disguised enslavement (socialism, religion,government....).

"Laissez faire" is broadly defined as non-interference on the part of the government, so your inclusion of any non-governmental influences in this complaint is non-sequitur. The precise definition varies from one individual to the next; for example patent and copyright laws certainly constitute government interference and yet even Rand supported those, so the question is not should the government interfere but rather, to what extent. The claim that laissez faire capitalism has never been tried is therefore baseless since there have been many experiments, on many scales, with varying degrees of government interference. History has demonstrated time and again that with too little government oversight, big business concentrates power to the hands of the few while simultaneously freeing those few of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This inevitably leads to exploitation and corruption. The belief that Adam Smith's Invisible Hand will magically make everything turn out right in the end is pure fantasy.

You show yourself, I show myself- all through one novel perhaps you underestimate the value of the work?

We could discuss a bubble gum wrapper and reveal just as much about ourselves, or as little, and owe just as much to the author, or as little.

I agree with you totally. Rand also assumes that logic and reason can and will fix anything; however, by nature peoples' logic and reason is biased.

Rand's characters and situations are hyperbolic - the whole point is to be extreme in order to be able to more fully illustrate her ideas.
That's why you see a gulf between human reality and her books. Her good characters are her ideals, and her villains are her anti-ideals.

Of course none of her heroes would express any ideas different from her own, because she wrote the book to express her ideas. You said it yourself:
"The real focus of Atlas Shrugged is to extoll Rand's philosophy."

Knowing that, you take the book as it is - a novel written to flesh out someone's philosophical ideas. You must have known that she expected people to disagree and to dislike it because of that.
You probably also know that she (and those who agree with her) would likely have considered you to be one of the very people the book preaches against, and any person in that category would naturally have an unfavorable reaction to the book and the philosophy.

Elizabeth May wrote: "You probably also know that she (and those who agree with her) would likely have considered you to be one of the very people the book preaches against"

So this book preaches against... anyone who disagrees with her?

"and any person in that category would naturally have an unfavorable reaction to the book and the philosophy."

So the mere fact that one dislikes this book means that one is a worthless parasite on the backside of humanity?

That Rand's ideas are expressed with no more subtlety than a Jackie Collins trash bestseller is doubtless irrelevant to you. For those of us who want to read about complex, well-fleshed-out characters struggling with difficult dilemmas, ATLAS SHRUGGED is a thoroughly arid wasteland. As the original reviewer points out, even a love affair ends with mutual respect on either side. Realistic? Just read about how Rand behaved when Nathaniel Branden dumped her for a younger woman to see how "realistic" that is...

Bibliotheque wrote: "So the mere fact that one dislikes this book means that one is a worthless parasite on the backside of humanity? "

I certainly would not say that - that is quite a generalization. Though I would consider it to be somewhat likely that Ms. Rand would have felt that way, it is not necessarily the case. There are plenty of reasons to dislike a book, most of them legitimate (including this reviewer's).

I think it is safe to say, logically, that all (or at least most) "worthless parasite{s} on the backside of humanity" are going to dislike this book; all those who dislike this book, however, are not worthless parasites on the backside of humanity.

I absolutely never said that the book preaches against anyone who disagrees with it.
The reasons for disagreement, I believe, would determine the category into which the person disagreeing would fall. It is the knee-jerk negative reaction to the philosophy itself - embodied by the book - that I meant, not just dislike for the book in general.


I have already pointed out that a lot of things about this book are not realistic and I do not think they are intended to be.
I do not believe that an author's personal life has any bearing on the value of his/her work of fiction, either, so attacking it does not impress me.
Real people make mistakes and behave badly. Fictional characters behave however the author wants them to in order to make his/her point.
It is not reality, it is fiction, and in this case fiction for a specific purpose - to provide hypothetical examples for the author's philosophy.


(I will also say that the Jackie Collins reference is indeed irrelevant to me, but only because I'm unfamiliar with that author.)

Elizabeth May wrote: "I think it is safe to say, logically, that all (or at least most) "worthless parasite{s} on the backside of humanity" are going to dislike this book; all those who dislike this book, however, are not worthless parasites on the backside of humanity."

Pleased to hear it! I misunderstood your earlier comment as circular reasoning, so thanks for setting me straight on it.

The reason I attacked Rand's life is that she didn't just intend this to be fiction, she intended it to be philosophy. She was preaching it as a way for people to live. Now, if someone tells someone else to behave in one way whilst behaving in quite the opposite way, they're a hypocrite, right? That's the reason why I bring Rand's personal behaviour into this: she states in her book that she requires no human being to put her needs ahead of their own, yet when Branden told her he no longer wanted her all of her rationalism flew out of the window.

Also, Rand never truly tests her characters. I would like to see her doctrine of Selfishness truly tested. I would like to see how her "heroes and heroines" would have reacted in the world of the movie JAWS. Would they have kept quiet about the shark attack because it would hurt business, or would they have declared it (even though profits would have sunk through the floor)?

In ATLAS SHRUGGED, the only people who are faced with that sort of decision are the "bad guys" (they keep quiet about the railroad, with the crash resulting). But what would the "good guys" have done, faced with the situation from JAWS?

To warn the tourists would be UNselfish and altruistic - the total opposite of Rand's doctrine of self-interest.

To not warn the tourists - putting their own profit above other people's lives - would make them true to their creed, but make them look like monsters!

Which is, I suspect, why Rand never tackled this sort of thing. Her heroes and heroines have to be "heroic", which means they have to be kept in unchallenging situations where they can always appear to be in the right.

Elizabeth May wrote: The reasons for disagreement, I believe, would determine the category into which the person disagreeing would fall. It is the knee-jerk negative reaction to the philosophy itself - embodied by the book - that I meant, not just dislike for the book in general.

For me, it wasn't the philosophy that wrecked the story, it was the characters. All of the characters fell into such starkly opposing categories that the people and the situations in the novel were like something off another planet. Externally, it appeared like earth but the people behaved nothing like normal people. The only reasonable character was Eddie Willers (in the novel's view he was neither good nor bad). At the end, I was still somewhat interested in the philosophy but the story part of the novel was excruciating. I wonder whether a novel with human characters could be written to more fairly represent Objectivism, or does Objectivism necessarily view the world this way?

I wonder if Rand's critics actually analyzed what really made the characters good or bad? E.G was Eddie Willers the "only reasonable character" and was he "neither good nor bad" in the novel's view? In the novel's view he was morally good even though he lacked the creative skills of some of the other characters. But what about Dan Conway, who was creative and an achiever, but tacitly accepted the "looters code" (albeit reluctantly)? He was also considered good. What about the "Wet Nurse" who blindly accepted the bureaucracy and looting, but then came to question it? He was good, in Rand's view, but was he heroic? What about Quentin Daniels who aspired to be an achiever but was nowhere near achieving it?

Yes Rand's definition of a good person was some one who holds the right thoughts and views (as she saw them) and does the right thing to the extent that they can. But isn't that everyone's definition of a good person?

Okay you could say that she made all her villains insincere. But even that is an oversimplification. Philip Reardon genuinely believed that he was right. The Wet Nurse thought likewise at the beginning. Dan Conway had self-doubt.

And even the villains were cut from various types of cloth. James Taggert was snivelling and weak and yearned for approval. Orren Boyle was snide and devious but certainly not weak - and he felt no need for approval. Ben Nealy was bitter and mediocre. Robert Stadler was disillusioned and frustrated. Fred Kinnon was openly cynical but in some respects he was a breath of fresh air precisely because of this! Cuffy Meigs on the other hand was nothing more than a thug. There was a lot more variety than many of you seem to think, both in the heroes and in the villains. I wonder if we were reading the same book.

I find it interesting to see the large range of opinion about Atlas Shrugged, as though we are reading different books.

David, I agree that there is some range of character in the book. That said, I found that they were ranges around two extremes. I don't know anyone as perfect as the heroes of Atlas Shrugged. Even the most accomplished people have their flaws. Also, I know few people as incompetent, sniveling or useless as a majority of the others portrayed in the book. I thought that Rand portrayed depth of character and feeling in the opening chapter of the book, but I found that depth missing from the rest of the book. The only person I could relate to was Eddie Willers, and he did not play a big part.

In my definition of a good person, it doesn't matter whether people hold the right thoughts or views. I'm more concerned about whether people treat each other decently. We need to work to make this world better, but believing the right thing isn't the be all and end all.

I disagree that Rand's heroes were never tested. They were willing to get down and do whatever job needed to be done to insure continued production and they recognized that endangering their customers would not benefit them. In the world of Jaws, if a Shark or other natural disaster was threatening their business, they would use reason to overcome the issue, such as kill the damn shark or figure out how to build a better bridge.

That seems to be one of the main points of the book to me and I am not sure how you could miss it. I think you totally misunderstand Rand's philosophy of selfishness.

When Rand's heroes are tested they always came out on top using the principles Rand is exposing (selfishness), while the Villains ultimately failed.

"if a Shark or other natural disaster was threatening their business, they would use reason to overcome the issue, such as kill the damn shark"

Would they hide the issue from the general public? That's the crux of the dilemma: either tell the public (and watch them stay away, to the detriment of business) or hide the problem (and risk the occasional kid being eaten).

"They'd kill the shark" is beside the point. Eventually the townsfolk DID manage to get the shark killed. But would Rand's businesspeople warn the tourists about the POTENTIAL problem beforehand (oh people, this swimmer got eaten by a shark last week...), or would they let business trundle on as usual and say nothing to harm it?

Judging from the way certain real-life businesspeople behaved with regard to the recent sub-prime issue, I'd guess that taking advantage of people's ignorance is acceptable business practice. Sure you can go into the water, little kid, it's perfectly safe in there...

Bibliotheque wrote: ""if a Shark or other natural disaster was threatening their business, they would use reason to overcome the issue, such as kill the damn shark"

Would they hide the issue from the general public?..."

The absolutely chilling aspect of the current Rand craze is the fact that many of our political leaders have embraced her model of society (One Randite told me it was "anarchy with a constable") and of economics (social Darwinism at its worst, or as Tip O'Neill said, "I've got mine and to Hell with you")--political leaders, who ? Newt Gingrich is one.

Oh, well, Rant over. That Rand captures the attention and the imagination at all testifies to the uncompromising strength of her vision. The same could be said for all those she hated, the "altruists" she called them, and the Marxists. Simone de Beauvoir once asked rhetorically, "Must we burn de Sade ?" No. Of course not. Nor Mein Kampf....not even the books of the book burners, certainly not those who write them.

I must have read a different book, because there is no way that someone who read the book I read would say that the philosphy amounts to "I've got mine and to Hell with you."

I don't know what Rand's Heroes would do in every situation, but I know that her philosophy does not promote putting others in harms way to make a profit.

"I don't know what Rand's Heroes would do in every situation, but I know that her philosophy does not promote putting others in harms way to make a profit."

But... that's selfishness. Putting your own interests ahead of everyone else's is selfishness. And Rand says that's a good thing. You must live for yourself alone, not for others.

This is, after all, the writer who has so little compassion for others that she delighted in the idea of conventional society perishing in flames whilst her little enclave of rich people rode out the storm in comfort. A perfect illustration of "I've got mine; to Hell with you"!

There is a Rand short story in the book on Objectivim called "From Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Basically about a factory where this principle is applied and everything goes to wrack and ruin. It's amusing no matter what your politics ...or economics......BTW, Isn't the more accurate translation of the original "to each according to his WORK" ? I can live with that.

Oh yes, there's a similar set-piece in ATLAS SHRUGGED and it may be the only decent bit of the book! (Though I don't remember it being amusing; it was more depressing in its awful inevitability.) Communism doesn't work. Can't work. Fact.

However, one decent critique on the sitting-duck of Communism doesn't excuse all the awfulness of the rest of the book imo.

Start with some facts: Ayn Rand took her name from a South African unit of currency, wore a dollar sign around her neck as a symbol of her beliefs, wrote highly didactic books, brooked no criticism EVER of anything she professed, professed a lot, wrote a book titled THE VIRTUES OF SELFISHNESS, came from a land in which the triumphing Bolshevik party killed millions of her countrymen.

Jesus was often sharp-tongued; Ghandi could be a Pecksniff at times; and Mohammed was the only human being carried up to God on a horse (and back).
According to Da Chen many in south China worship Buddha as a god, bring him gifts--received by his priests, same deal as they had at going at Delphi--and ask the Awakened One to help their crops grow and their wives conceive.

This debate about Rand is as useless as--What did Barney Frank say to that lady ?, Oh, yeah--as useless as arguing with a table.

Me ? I have recorded Dianetics backward in Hebrew and am listening to it for signs of The Second Coming. May whatever gods may be bless you Rick, and BTW: Your profile picture looks like that of one distressed. Try eating bananas for the potassium and get some berries on board--my shrink says it helps dopamine production. PeaceOut, Thom

"Try eating bananas for the potassium"

Hey! Steady on, Thom: we're here to put the boot into a deceased Russian emigree, not the humble reviewer! :D PeaceOut, Bibs.

I can't say that I got the impression she "delighted" in the destruction of society. In the Story, it was the only option, according to the Fictional Story.

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word 鈥渟elfishness鈥� is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual 鈥減ackage-deal,鈥� which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word 鈥渟elfishness鈥� is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 鈥渟elfishness鈥� is: concern with one鈥檚 own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one鈥檚 own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man鈥檚 actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

"I can't say that I got the impression she "delighted" in the destruction of society. In the Story, it was the only option, according to the Fictional Story."

I'm sure the people who thrill at the idea of being "Raptured" and watching the rest of the Unsaved perish in the Last Days would say the exact same thing. Same principle, though - "I've got mine!"

And, going back to the original JAWS scenario - which is better for the businessperson's own interests: warning the public about the shark (and watching them stay away from the resort in droves, resulting in possible bankruptcy) or staying silent about the shark, hoping that it won't eat a kid and then pleading ignorance if it does?

Rand's businesspeople would have stayed silent about the shark. For them to do otherwise would have been counter to their own doctrine of selfishness.

I just wonder how many Randites will GET raptured. Or come to think of it, how many of them can dance on the head of a pin. You guys duke it out, I'm going to eat popcorn and yell at the pundits on Fox News.

"I'm sure the people who thrill at the idea of being "Raptured" and watching the rest of the Unsaved perish in the Last Days would say the exact same thing. Same principle, though - "I've got mine!" "

And the Buddhist's are happy when they are not reincarnated, what does that have to do with anything?

I already said that I think they would not remain silent. I guess its just my opinion. And it would not be against Rand's doctrine of selfishness, although it would be against your doctrine of selfishness.

"And the Buddhists are happy when they are not reincarnated, what does that have to do with anything?"

Plenty! The Buddhists have their own happiness which doesn't depend on watching other people suffer. Rand, and the Armageddon-wishers, want to watch loads of other people suffering so they can say, "See? You're in horrible torments because you didn't listen to me!"

One of these impulses is healthy, and the other is sadistic. ("To hell with YOU!")

"I already said that I think they would not remain silent. I guess its just my opinion."

Let me know if you can tell me *why* they'd choose to tell the people about the shark, even though it would hurt their businesses. As I said, self-interest as you describe it would demand that they keep silent about it. For them to act with compassion towards the tourists would be selfLESS, and contrary to Randian principles.

Bibliotheque wrote: ""And the Buddhists are happy when they are not reincarnated, what does that have to do with anything?"

Plenty! The Buddhists have their own happiness which doesn't depend on watching other peopl..."
Not just Buddhists, Bibs....Hindus in general also. Which, together is about half the world ? ....But i HAD thought Randites were more ignoring than gloating over the unfortunate. Come to think of it, ignoring people is the WORST insult, some would say.
But Rand's whole argument is a straw-man: It's not INDUSTRIAL capitalism that is the problem but, as John Bogle maintained (Battle for the Soul of Capitalism) but MANAGERIAL....Even on a GOOD day the money-changers at AIG never MADE anything ....but more money !

Back to Elton's point about killing the shark, that is indeed the crux of the problem, not whether to tell people or not - those are not the only two options, although it would make your argument tidier if they were.
A capitalist or objectivist wants to be the best at what s/he does. Having a shark problem at all would be, obviously, unhelpful.

People dying as a result of patronizing your business would clearly be the worst publicity ever, so the owner is not going to risk that.

Telling people would also hurt the business, so the whole Randian point here is that whoever can rid themselves creatively of the problem of the shark is the one who has a successful business and gets the customers, thus making the most money.

It is in the "Randite's" best interest for people to stay alive so that they might be contributing to the ebb and flow of wealth in some way. The more people there are, the more consumers there are, thus the more people to buy your product or service (at the very least; ideally some of them would be producing something that you personally would want to buy).

The enclave of "heroes" does not delight in the fall of the rest of the world. Most of them fought long and hard to keep the world from collapsing before finally dropping out - realizing it was costing them too much - thus the Atlas metaphor.

John Galt's radio broadcast was a further attempt to bring the rest of the world to its senses before it was destroyed completely. He was trying to convince people of what strength and intelligence they still had in them, if they would only recognize and use it, which he urged them to do.
How can you read that and then say they wanted society to crumble so that they could say "I told you so?"

I truly believe the objectivist does not wish to see other people suffer, but instead believes that it is an unfortunate consequence of the bad decisions of others, which it is not his/her responsibility to fix. This does bring up an issue of ethics, as Elton also mentioned. Within the context of the book, however, there don't (to me) seem to be any protagonists gloating over the possible death and destruction of a good portion of the human race.

I have to agree with what Karl said earlier; it does seem as though some of us have read different books.


I also agree with the idea of managerial capitalism being a big problem. I'm not sure I understand why that makes Rand's argument a straw-man... since she is a proponent of capitalism, and not an opponent. I think that is exactly what she is saying, but implicitly - managerial capitalism clearly doesn't fall into the category of someone producing something and being the best at it, thus beating out the competitors.

I don't know a great deal about economic history, but I'm guessing the sort of thing (like the AIG example) we deal with now was much less common when Rand was writing these books. Things have certainly spiraled out of control since that time, at least.

Elizabeth May wrote: "Back to Elton's point about killing the shark, that is indeed the crux of the problem, not whether to tell people or not - those are not the only two options, although it would make your argument t..."

Elizabeth May, I think we agree almost completely on what-Rand-said and what-Rand-means.....You are correct..."Strawman" is not the right word, neither is Red Herring....Clearly she was presenting clearly, forcefully, allegorically the diametric opposite of Bolshevism. Alas, we liberals stuck in the middle have been trying to point out that we are not the enemy and neither are lazy-folk-on-the-dole so much as this MOSS , these strangler vines of banks, insurance companies, side-bet market derivatives, ten-percenters who do very well for themselves, add nothing to the general welfare, create nothing...for them no metaphor is dark enough...leeches, lampreys, bloated catfish hovering in mid-stream.....Rand was perhaps too decent a person at heart to imagine such Evil...most of us are.

"Back to Elton's point about killing the shark, that is indeed the crux of the problem, not whether to tell people or not - those are not the only two options, although it would make your argument tidier if they were."

Which gets back to my point about Rand never challenging her "heroes" with real dilemmas! Of course it would easy to write "They killed the shark immediately and no business was affected: The End". That's probably what Rand would write. But the fact remains that life isn't like that. It is not easy to pinpoint a shark's location in a million cubic miles of ocean, and meantime the trippers keep coming! Sometimes it comes down to a choice between sacrificing someone else or sacrificing your own interests.

The thing is, Rand is so gung-ho about her heroes being "noble" - and yet, in these situation, the only "nobility" derives from sacrificing one's own self-interest for the sake of others! What happens then to her creed of selfishness?

Let's get back to that shark. As you state, it would not be in the businesspeople's interest to tell the innocent daytrippers about it, so what motivation would they have to come clean about it? Someone getting killed? That might not affect business if it can be passed off as a one-off killing... And so, you see, the principle of "self-interest" comes down to how many "little people" can be allowed to die before the profit margin is affected. How praiseworthy is that?

"The enclave of "heroes" does not delight in the fall of the rest of the world. Most of them fought long and hard to keep the world from collapsing before finally dropping out - realizing it was costing them too much - thus the Atlas metaphor."

Funny, that: when I read the book, I saw a guy - John Galt - who'd invited a Magic Motor that managed to extract pure energy "from the air itself". This is a guy who, with his cohort of successful buddies, could have established a business which would have SAVED the world from chaos. Instead, he chooses to turn away and wait for Armageddon to ensue.

"I got mine; to hell with you!"

The world is not quite so black and white as one might like; life is not made up of simply two options for each scenario. The fact that you keep trying to narrow it down to one or the other in the shark example is frustrating. You seem to be avoiding the point, so I'll leave that particular issue alone.

Here's an idea - you can help other people without sacrificing your own interests, and you can pursue your own interests without putting anyone else in harm's way. This is another arena where your dichotomy approach just doesn't work or apply.

In regard to the group of drop-outs, the problem is that anytime one of the people who had something of value to contribute to the world did in fact make it available, they were crapped on for it (pardon the figure of speech; I couldn't think of any other way to put it). Look at Reardon. They were jealous of his product, so they told him it was garbage, then they stole it from him while spitting in his face.

Ever heard of Nikola Tesla? Galt reminds me of him in certain ways. As with Tesla, the world (in the book, likely also in reality) would not have understood Galt's invention and would have been afraid of it, and then condemned both him and it. He saved it, and its use, for those who would understand and appreciate it... those who deserved it.


I guess a lot of what you get out of the book depends on what you're bringing to the table. Many of these comments smack of negativity and bitterness, with the incessant refrain of "to hell with you." For me, this book was not about savagery and sadism. Perhaps that would be your interpretation if that's how your mind works anyway.

I believe this book is about self-respect and embracing your own worth, and finding other people of worth and supporting each other - through commerce, as it was originally intended to be.

It's about not accepting or tolerating mediocrity, but rather striving for and achieving personal excellence, and then trading the results of your excellence for something of equal value. It's about having the uncontested right to your own achievements, and refusing the idea of obligation to give away what you have worked for.

To me, this book is a manifesto for the concept of Personal Freedom; it uplifts me and inspires me, and that is why I love it.

God bless all here. I think trying to discuss Rand in the context of the current Meltdown may have us all a bid too edgy. All I see on the tele is people talking loud, shouting even, shouting each other down--no civility. Thank you guys for ALL your insights....let's blow out our candles and hit the sack. 9:00 PM EST 10/7/09. --T.D.

"The fact that you keep trying to narrow it down to one or the other in the shark example is frustrating. You seem to be avoiding the point, so I'll leave that particular issue alone."

How am I avoiding the point? I'm showing you that the easy option ("They caught the shark immediately; The End") does not always apply! Suppose they can't catch the shark straight off, what happens then? You can't answer my question honestly without making your Randian heroes look bad, so you argue that they shouldn't be exposed to the real challenges in life. I'm not impressed with the limitations of Rand's philosophy.

"In regard to the group of drop-outs, the problem is that anytime one of the people who had something of value to contribute to the world did in fact make it available, they were crapped on for it (pardon the figure of speech; I couldn't think of any other way to put it). Look at Reardon. They were jealous of his product, so they told him it was garbage, then they stole it from him while spitting in his face."

I don't doubt it - but shouldn't Reardon have found himself a group of like-minds and worked on promoting his product instead of "taking his bat and ball and going home"? That's how life works in the real world: you invent something, you then have to watch out for all the parasites and copiers who will then try to take your idea/invention from you! It's a bit naive to react to this by picturing a mountainous Shangri-La where all the like-minds can club together and wait for everything else to go to rack and ruin - especially as the book was written in the POST-nuclear age, and worldwide economic ruin could have entailed the destruction of pretty much the entire planet.

Ever heard of the phrase "All that is required for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing"? That principle is being played out in ATLAS SHRUGGED, but the difference is that Rand expects us to applaud her movers and shakers for dropping out! Can you think of anything more childish?

"He saved it, and its use, for those who would understand and appreciate it... those who deserved it."

So those who SURVIVE the apocalypse are automatically deserving of life? Is that how the thinking goes?

"I guess a lot of what you get out of the book depends on what you're bringing to the table. Many of these comments smack of negativity and bitterness, with the incessant refrain of "to hell with you." For me, this book was not about savagery and sadism. Perhaps that would be your interpretation if that's how your mind works anyway."

I can see why Rand appeals to you: it sounds to me as if you mentally cast the world into two, "those who support me" and "those who don't (and who must therefore be deeply flawed in mind and soul)". Rand likes to cast her non-heroes as whining, creeping, repellent scum, doesn't she? Well, as a reader, I prefer a writer who's able to look at the world with a little more balance. Not everyone who disagrees with me is a "savage" and a "sadist", and I don't stoop to flinging such terms at the person I'm debating with. It would be nice if Rand's supporters extended me the same courtesy.

As for the constant refrain of "To hell with you", that's exactly what Rand is saying in her book. To hell with everyone else but her own little enclave! I use it as an illustration of her world-view, not as a direct insult to you.

"I believe this book is about self-respect and embracing your own worth, and finding other people of worth and supporting each other - through commerce, as it was originally intended to be."

Hmm. Isn't commerce supposed to be about "survival of the fittest" rather than "supporting each other"? It's when businesspeople chum together and fix prices that the result is bad for the average consumer! Commerce isn't about "supporting each other", it's about competition and lots of less-than-noble practices (such as undercutting your competitor to drive him/her out of business, then attempting to gain a monopoly on the market to charge what you like). It'd be nice to have a rosy-spectacles view of the business world, but a quick look at the business pages of any newspaper should disabuse one of that idea.

"It's about not accepting or tolerating mediocrity, but rather striving for and achieving personal excellence, and then trading the results of your excellence for something of equal value. It's about having the uncontested right to your own achievements, and refusing the idea of obligation to give away what you have worked for."

The concept of personal excellence is fine, but as for the rest, there will always be vile scum out there trying to hitch a ride off the backs of genuine creators and motivators. The secret is to recognize this phenomenon and deal with it practically, not envisage a scenario where one can "drop out" in a place of safety and watch as the rest of the world perishes in flames and destruction.

I'm certainly not going to look at the business page of a newspaper to see how the business world ought to be - we've already established that it's in unacceptable shape, so I won't be using the current situation (or "any" newspaper's coverage of it) as my standard.

"One of these impulses is healthy, and the other is sadistic."
Your wording, earlier in the discussion, not mine. I used the word "sadism" as my statement of what the book is not about (because you had already used it), not as a word used to describe any individual. What I meant was that if your mind is already in a negative frame, for whatever reason, you're more likely to have a negative experience and interpretation of the book.

I apologize for the wording that made it seem like a direct and personal attack. That was not my intention.

You suggest dealing with things practically, and I suggest reading the book for what it is - a work of fiction. Rand also wrote non-fiction pieces about her philosophy, but this book, with its characters and scenarios, remains a figment of her imagination. To me, that means she can have her characters behave in any way she wants, be tested in any way she wants, and be as idealistic and stylized as she sees fit.

I admit that I'm curious as to what your solution would be when you say "the secret is to recognize this phenomenon and deal with it practically." How would you have dealt with it? What do you wish Rand had made her characters do? I am interested because I think whatever solution you would propose might also be applied to the current American economic situation.

As for what you said about commerce, granted. There is always a degree of cutthroat policy, and some people thrive on that. What I was trying to say is that you can't make everything yourself, no matter how talented and hard-working you are. When you need some commodity or service that you personally cannot make/provide, you take on the role of consumer.

Let's say you want a wood stove for your house - so you find the manufacturers of stoves, and choose which one has the best product and service. You give him/her your business, by buying a stove, and not only are you participating in the selection process of economic survival of the fittest, you are also supporting that particular stove maker. I don't mean emotionally or however you took it to mean when I first said it, but financially - just as whoever buys your product or service is supporting you, enabling you to have the means to continue producing, and also continue buying other products and services. It's a partnership, it always has been a partnership between the maker and the buyer, which is why the people in the little cove of drop-outs have a currency and their own businesses. Everyone there fulfills a need that the community has as a whole, and everyone makes money by being a need-fulfiller.

That's what I mean by helping people without sacrificing your own interests - in this fictional mini-utopia, which I believe to be a faint realistic possibility, the individual is both producer and consumer, and the more he gives others what they need and/or want, the more he furthers his own ends.

It seems like a win-win to me, but it doesn't appeal to everyone. That's ok with me. Those to whom that doesn't appeal are free to do their own thing. If those who do something different end up making a mess of it, that's unfortunate, but it's their mess. The people who didn't make the mess can't be expected to clean it up for those who did.

I think that's what Rand's saying, not "I've got mine, to hell with you," but "to each his own," or "I've made mine; you're free to do your own thing."


("...And I'm free to not clean up anyone else's messes.")

"I'm certainly not going to look at the business page of a newspaper to see how the business world ought to be - we've already established that it's in unacceptable shape, so I won't be using the current situation (or "any" newspaper's coverage of it) as my standard."

... That's what business in the real world is like. You have to use every trick you can to maximize profit. Which may explain why most real-life businesspeople are not my heroes.

"Your wording, earlier in the discussion, not mine. I used the word "sadism" as my statement of what the book is not about (because you had already used it), not as a word used to describe any individual. What I meant was that if your mind is already in a negative frame, for whatever reason, you're more likely to have a negative experience and interpretation of the book."

The reason I used "sadistic" is that there are two kinds of people: those who are willing to "live and let live", and those who won't be satisfied until the people who disagree with them are drowning in a sea of fire. From the showing of ATLAS SHRUGGED, Rand belongs in the second category. Hence my use of the term "sadistic" to describe her.

I didn't appreciate the implication that if I reacted badly to the image of innocent people drowning in fire the fault must lie with me, but I understand you intended no *personal* attack, so thanks.

"You suggest dealing with things practically, and I suggest reading the book for what it is - a work of fiction.... this book, with its characters and scenarios, remains a figment of her imagination. To me, that means she can have her characters behave in any way she wants, be tested in any way she wants, and be as idealistic and stylized as she sees fit."

Yes, and I can hold it up to particular standards, and criticize it if it appears to be lacking. Since Rand intended her fiction to illustrate her philosophy, these books of hers are prime fodder for examination. If she wants to create a world where her characters never have to be tested in any crucible that really matters - such as the JAWS situation - well, I'm allowed to point that out.

"I admit that I'm curious as to what your solution would be when you say "the secret is to recognize this phenomenon and deal with it practically." How would you have dealt with it? What do you wish Rand had made her characters do? I am interested because I think whatever solution you would propose might also be applied to the current American economic situation."

Well, I am not a powerful figure in the world of commerce - and I have no solution for the problem of human greed - so whilst I'm charmed you think I could single-handedly solve the current economic crisis, I must sadly pass on that. Let's imagine, however, that I am John Galt, and I have just invented a Magic Motor that runs on energy "from the air itself". Let us also imagine that, as John Galt, I have for friends a number of highly-skilled and successful businesspeople, all of who have unimpeachable moral integrity (you can tell this because they have never, NEVER taken advantage of other people's hard work, unlike the parasites around them).

The answer to the problem would appear to be obvious: with back-up like that, what's to stop me and my friends constructing the engine, setting up our own business and pulling the world BACK from the brink of chaos? With careful control (my hand-picked cohorts of great integrity) no-one could steal the secrets of the engine's design from me. I would have an extremely powerful source of energy which could solve the climate crisis at one stroke!

... Well, I *could* do that. Or I could just set up my own little camp, wait for the world to self-destruct and for there to be no possible industry left to challenge me when I emerge from my retreat. (For a book which claims to be pro-competition, ATLAS SHRUGGED is actually pretty pro-monopoly.)

Which is better, my plan to save the world using that engine or John Galt's plan to set up a gated community for the ultra-rich to party whilst the rest of the world goes to pot? (Especially as, when America goes to pot, the North Koreans may decide to launch nuclear rockets on the "Hey, they can't possibly fight back" principle. That'd leave a bit of a dent in Galt's Gulch, wouldn't it?)

You see my point? We're all interconnected. Withdrawing from the world when you have the talent, opportunities AND THE POWERFUL CONTACTS to make a real difference is just irresponsible - and, more to the point, once those social links are broken, what's to stop desperate starving people coming after the "haves" with assault rifles? After all, what will they have to lose?

This is why we need a cohesive society, something where people who want to work have the opportunity to do so, and those who genuinely have physical problems are given some socially beneficial work to do in return for their wage. This isn't communism, it's common sense. If we all have sufficient to sustain ourselves, we all benefit.

Your mini-utopia - well, I can see one small problem with the example you give. Where will the parts for the wood-stove be made? Will they be hand-forged, piece by piece, in some stable out back? Where will the metal for these parts come from? Will there be a source of iron ore within a five-mile radius, and miners standing by ready to mine it? Who will produce the heavy-duty machinery they'll be using?... You see my point. Much of what we need is produced far away from our homes, and we have to work together as a fully cohesive society to fully benefit from the great things this world has to offer. (Do you know how to produce plastic? Or microchips? Neither do I. But unless we want an Amish existence...)

So when I see a book that promotes able and successful people "dropping out" (and whining how they're doing so because people were MEAN to them!), I get annoyed. When I see Rand describing a good innocent person like Eddie Willers dying in the desert because society went to pot, I'm appalled.

But she doesn't believe in helping one's fellow human beings, does she? She thinks society (and the good innocent people who erred only in not piling up enough personal wealth) must perish in flames and destruction just to prove that she was right.

I believe in a world where if someone is in genuine need, you help them - and one knows when to draw the line so they don't become dependent, and if someone needs help to get back on their feet again, they get that help and the opportunity of a job where they can contribute something to the society which has helped them. I think that's a healthier set-up than a scenario where virtually everyone perishes except a snug little enclave high in the mountains.

Is it possible we are all reacting to Ayn Rand, the person, as if she were some incarnation of C. G. Jung's "Great and Terrible Mother" ? It helps to recall that a book, a poem, a story, yadayadayada....each is an IDEA....For anyone with Randitis I recommend viewing the film of The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. There is that same hieratic sense of larger-than-life, statuesque people behaving rather mechanically in accordance with principle rather than things gladular and hormonal, but the two marvelous actors and the screenplay help to humanize the story a bit. Still just a story.

Bibliotheque wrote: ""I'm certainly not going to look at the business page of a newspaper to see how the business world ought to be - we've already established that it's in unacceptable shape, so I won't be using the c..."

Bibs, If you don't like Ayn Rand ( and I don't much) for God's sake stay away from Ann Coulter, her spiritual nut-bag grand-daughter !! LOL, Thom

P.S. I wonder if anyone has done a DEVELOPMENTAL study of Rand's fiction set against the context of her life , especially her long-term affair with Nathniel Brandon. Right now she sits there in my imagination, a Monolith, furious but unmoving and certainly unmoveable.

P. P. S. Sharks ! I just swim/run like hell for the shore.

"Plenty! The Buddhists have their own happiness which doesn't depend on watching other people suffer."

That is the closest you have come to defining What rand means by selfishness. What you say after that makes no sense to me so I can not even comment on it.

"Why (sharks)"

Because a reasonable self-interest would realize that hiding the fact of the shark, having a shark eat your customers, would ultimately be bad for your business and would reveal that you are dependant on deception rather then your own production.

"but shouldn't Reardon have found himself a group of like-minds and worked on promoting his product instead "

Isn't that what he did in Galt's Gulch?

"The reason I used "sadistic" is that there are two kinds of people: those who are willing to "live and let live", and those who won't be satisfied until the people who disagree with them are drowning in a sea of fire. From the showing of ATLAS SHRUGGED, Rand belongs in the second category. Hence my use of the term "sadistic" to describe her."

Your statement does not reflect Atlas Shrugged at all. Did you even read the book? I mean come on, none of the hereos in the book wanted people to drown in a sea of fire. They wanted desperately to save the crumbling society.

"climate crisis at one stroke! "

There was no climate crisis when Rand wrote this book, or a least no one knew about it. And it certainly didn't exist in the universe of her fictional book.

"We're all interconnected. Withdrawing from the world when you have the talent, opportunities AND THE POWERFUL CONTACTS to make a real difference.."

Yes, exactly. That is one of the MAIN points of the book. You are finally starting to see! Rand wanted to illustrate what would happen when these types of people withdraw from society, from a society that continued to insult them.

"That is the closest you have come to defining What rand means by selfishness. What you say after that makes no sense to me so I can not even comment on it."

Ah, but the Buddhist's conception of Nirvana truly is a solitary pursuit. In this world, it's pure stupidity. In this world, you can be a solitary soul only on a desert island; as soon as another person appears, you have to co-operate with them. Society is based on co-operation.

"Because a reasonable self-interest would realize that hiding the fact of the shark, having a shark eat your customers, would ultimately be bad for your business and would reveal that you are dependant on deception rather then your own production."

No, the "shark conundrum" is a conundrum precisely because you hurt YOURSELF by being honest about the threat! If you announce the threat, people won't necessarily say "Thank you for being honest with me", there's a good chance they'll just vanish. However, if you hide it and claim "I didn't know" when the bad stuff happens, there's still a chance you won't get blamed for it and your business will thrive. See? Nobility will get you nowhere - and yet I would still urge nobility over selfishness in this instance. Rand wouldn't. Rand would put the business interests over the little kids, like the businesspeople in JAWS.

"Your statement does not reflect Atlas Shrugged at all. Did you even read the book? I mean come on, none of the hereos in the book wanted people to drown in a sea of fire. They wanted desperately to save the crumbling society."

They made a token effort, then sulked and said "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home!" Really great. Did you see my comment "So when I see a book that promotes able and successful people "dropping out" (and whining how they're doing so because people were MEAN to them!), I get annoyed"?

"There was no climate crisis when Rand wrote this book, or a least no one knew about it. And it certainly didn't exist in the universe of her fictional book."

Climate change - a reality - invalidates the premises of her "selfishness" argument. We need to work TOGETHER if we're to combat it, not hide away and pretend it doesn't exist - because when it destroys the Earth it'll hurt everyone, even the ones who hid in a gated community and pretended the rest of the world didn't matter.

"Yes, exactly. That is one of the MAIN points of the book. You are finally starting to see! Rand wanted to illustrate what would happen when these types of people withdraw from society, from a society that continued to insult them."

What should have happened was that all these RICH and POWERFUL people got together and worked to save the world, instead of partying it up as the world burns and the innocent people perish.

Elton wrote: ""Plenty! The Buddhists have their own happiness which doesn't depend on watching other people suffer."

That is the closest you have come to defining What rand means by selfishness. What you say af..."

AGREED, ELTON, but Rand was concerned only with INDUSTRIAL Capitalism, with people who actually make useful stuff. Today you have political types in Congress trying to use Rand to justify all the wanton shenanigans of Wall Street MANAGERIAL (Money-changing) capitalists. All they do, ALL they do, is syphon off dough and impoverish the working class. You want STRONG workers, not zombies who will screw up your production line because they have not had adequate sleep or nutrition.

"All they do, ALL they do, is syphon off dough and impoverish the working class. You want STRONG workers, not zombies who will screw up your production line because they have not had adequate sleep or nutrition."

Amen to that! (Though your words show a worrying amount of compassion: those people would probably argue that it's better "business sense" to use people up until they get sick, then throw them aside and get fresh people in, right? Besides, "strong workers" just aren't desperate enough for the current system to operate...)

Rand, for all her rampant romanticism, was nonetheless interested in a better, more workable society. Her didactic thrust was always against the state machinery embodied in Bolshevism or any socialist variant thereof. She honestly thought--so I've read--that her free-for-all social Darwinist libertarian struggle would produce the healthiest, most virant polity. To my mind this is not so much wrong as naive.....a bit like Emma Goldman (on the left) thinking the way to improve society was by destroying it.
I once heard a political savant assert that the more important thing than tearing down (relatively easy) the Old Order, was designing the new order to put in its place. After Atlas shrugs.....what happens then ? Shakespeare gave Ulysses (T. & Cressida) to say "Power, like a universal wolf, at last eat up itself."

Bibliotheque wrote: ""All they do, ALL they do, is syphon off dough and impoverish the working class. You want STRONG workers, not zombies who will screw up your production line because they have not had adequate sleep..."

Bibs, See my reply to your comment above.

" She honestly thought--so I've read--that her free-for-all social Darwinist libertarian struggle would produce the healthiest, most virant polity. To my mind this is not so much wrong as naive.....a bit like Emma Goldman (on the left) thinking the way to improve society was by destroying it."

It is naive, isn't it, to think that a starting-point of "me me me" will eventually result in a bunch of co-operative individuals working to achieve the best result for everyone. (Could she not SEE that co-operation often means "compromise", and "compromise" means everyone accepting a little less for the good of all? Like taxes?... Oh well!)

"After Atlas shrugs.....what happens then?"

They need to clear up all the bodies of the innocent people who died - like Eddie Willers - to prove Rand's point. Collateral damage, I think Rand would call that.

Compromise isn't always the best way, especially when it comes to compromising your values. Compromise often means accepting less, and accepting less often leads to accepting a little less than that, and then even less, and less than that again, and where are you then? Are you happy, or are you tolerating mediocrity?

Yes, EM, but that's a theoretical argument about compromise: I'm talking about its practical application in the form of taxes. Do you think people should be prepared to accept a reduction in their incomes (taxes) to help pay for a healthy society? Because if you do, great, we're on the same page...

I think it's safe to say we're not on the same page, and haven't been for a while now...