Atlas Shrugged
discussion
What effect did this book have on you??
message 101:
by
Anthony
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
May 04, 2013 05:27PM
Claire glad to see I wasn't alone in my reaction!
reply
|
flag
It appears the real message of this book is lost on those with a misguided philosophical view of the context. Very sad.
Sleep. It gave me that same sort of relaxed feeling I get when I watch golf on TV.
Tim, your response is quite troubling but does speak volumes.
Well, unlike her other work, it is a nice little into a silly boys fantasyland... Any was it near as lackluster as her fans.
Wish I could understand your message.
Somehow "romp" did not print after "little"
Galt is so much less of a crybaby than fountainheads Roark
I can't comment on Fountainhead as I've not read it yet. However, I do think the the plan's vision of waiting out the country's fall was genius as the philosophical structure the producers were battling was doomed to failure. I could go on for hours about economics but to put it simply, these ideological Utopias have no means of support without the free market.
Capital markets historically have always been the cause of economic collapse, not labor, nor labor unions. To blame labor for economic troubles is like blaming the ocean because there is no water in the desert...
Tim wrote: "Sleep. It gave me that same sort of relaxed feeling I get when I watch golf on TV."I just meant the writing style put me to sleep.
The problem is not capital markets; it's men and proclivity for corruption. Your argument is as weak as blaming guns for deaths that are caused by human action.“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” James Madison
I think it had the most dangerous effect on me. The effect of a selective understanding on an ignorant mind, you say? Perhaps.I became just a tad bit more selfish.
Janice wrote: "The problem is not capital markets; it's men and proclivity for corruption. Your argument is as weak as blaming guns for deaths that are caused by human action.“If men were angels, no government ..."
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
http://rationalrant.blogspot.com/2011...Old Fakes Resurface; Film at Eleven
Jon Rowe calls my attention to new sightings of old fakes … fake quotations, that is. A certain Larry Klayman (“Occupy Washington with God”) cites the Founders, or what he takes to be the Founders, in support of his nebulous position on the place of religion in government. But did the Founders actually say the things he attributes to them? Well, yes—and no. Let’s have a rundown, shall we?
He starts by alluding to, but not quoting from, a genuine letter of John Adams, and follows that up with a genuine quotation that quickly turns awry:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … We have no constitution which functions in the absence of a moral people.
This comes from a letter Adams wrote on 11 October 1798 to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, of the Massachusetts Militia. The relevant text reads:
But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(The portions quoted are given in bold.) The sentence “We have no constitution which functions in the absence of a moral people” is not part of this letter, and is not Adams. The oldest reference Google Books comes up with is from 2001. It seems to be a paraphrase of the genuine letter.
Klayman goes on to Adams’ son, John Quincy, whom he describes as “an even greater president than his father”, and there fails miserably. His quotation:
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. … The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity (July 4, 1821).
Janice wrote: "...Those who can't get past the failings of socialism, which history has proven time and again, is an unsustainable social system that increases poverty to economic collapse."Wow. It seems to me that people are generally confused about what socialism is. I'm not sure what history books you are reading, but there are many countries based on a socialistic philosophy that are thriving. If you research some of the happiest countries, you'll find many of them to have socialistic leanings.
Many people quote Hitler as being a socialist. This is only because he named his political party the National Socialists. In reality, the Nazi party had very little in common with the socialist movement. He told the Reichstag in 1933, "The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property.”
Socialism tries to view all people as equals in society regardless of their station in life. The goal is not to "take from the rich and give to the poor," but to ensure that everyone's basic rights are granted. They have a more extended list of individual rights than we do here in America. Hitler certainly did not believe in all people as equals. He destroyed those he felt were a drag on society... rather than take care of them, he got rid of them.
We are on the verge of proving that capitalism can become an unsustainable social system which is increasing poverty and leading to an economic collapse.
I admit it's been years since since I've read Shrugged, but I remember taking notes in the margins of both it and Fountainhead. But looking back in light of all the Ayn Rand hype we have today, I guess I completely missed her point. I looked at the two books not as a celebration of individualism, but as a warning of what can happen if we are too focused on self and not on the society in which we thrive. I thought the books were excellent studies on how NOT to live.
Of course, I had no idea who Ayn Rand was. I now know my interpretations of her books were dead wrong. However, I still choose to view the message as a warning, not a celebration.
I guess there is a reason the conservative message does not resonate with me.
Conservatism does not resonate with weak people. Socialism resonates with those who refuse to do for themselves and insist on consuming those who are self-sufficient. If you think people are equal, then you're delusional. We may be equal in the eyes of God and before the law but in reality, many are more capable than others. Even the Bible says the poor will always be with us. You can't teach people to elevate themselves by giving them everything they need. That notion is not only foolish but dangerous to the advancement of society. Marx the parasitical douchebag that he was is proof positive. You can't make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor. And government is not the great equalizer as a government that large is corrupt and would need to consume so many resources that the administration of it would become unsustainable.It might be enlightening to read "The Secret Knowledge" by David Mamet. He was a liberal before his epiphany.
All the best....
Stupidity and entitlement tends to get all warm and fuzzy about capitalism. Thinking people realize labor creates all capital and capital create no labor
Your spin is laughable. How many jobs have you gotten from poor people? And govt inherently destroys. It is not a creator of anything but chaos. But no need to take it so seriously. Life is temporary and socialism is designed to expedite human turnover. It is not an equalizer; it just makes everyone poor except for a few elite. It contains too many unresolvable arguments.
Funny Janice, almost every job, and actually every job, if you go back to the source, I got from poor people. Poor people shop at Walmart and Macdonalds and allow those companies to pay their managers a living wage and they can afford to buy my low end services, and those same poor people allow the major stockholders to skim enough off to buy my high end services. Without the poor people giving their money to the middle class and 1%ers and without the poor providing the labor to run those businesses, neither of the other groups would exist, much less have the disposable income to keep me in business. So while poor people can't afford anything I sell, without their work neither my business nor the general economy would even exist. Capitalism is the parasite that finds the crevices in the fabric of society and exploits an already functioning system to desperate those who create wealth from the wealth itself. And I am a capitalist!
You certainly have an inside out way of looking at things. It is untrue that only poor people shop at Walmart and McDonalds and a significant amount of poor people are subsidized by the earned income tax dollars of people like me. The free market can be an opportunity for anyone who is willing to work hard, persevere and take the risk. In case you didn't know, Sears Department Store started with a guy on the side of the road in a wooden stand repairing watches in Chicago. Many people today don't have any motivation (or the principles it takes) to amount to anything other than subsisting as an entitlement junkie. I am not talking about the poor oppressed in 3rd world countries. I'm talking about the worthless souls nurtured by democrats in the God-forsaken USA. I'm done with this conversation. It is not my desire to argue with you nor is it my mission or duty to correct your misguided ship. But if you think pity and giving people free stuff is compassion, I sure as hell hope you aren't raising children. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Janice i have three wonderful and successful sons, and they are taught not to speak in trite cliches, nor to spew such selfish lies as yours. i suppose you think the walmart and macdonalds minimum wage employees arent working very hard, but the stockholders who make millions sitting in their easy chairs investing money they inherited are?
William wrote: "I have never read a novel that I had hoped the plot would just stop and I could get back to the author's commentary."Amen!
Oh, darn! Janice is done with this conversation before I could even respond to her calling me weak. But in case she can't keep away, I have several things to add to this conversation.1. Anthony never said ONLY poor people shop at Walmart and McDonalds.
2. If you think the capitalistic society which we call our beloved America even slightly represents the Free Market, you are sadly mistaken. The basic rules of the free market begin with a level playing field. This we do not have in America. The policies are written by big business to protect their own interests and to squash any competition. Walmart does not play by the rules of the free market. Capitalism in America has become an economy where the richer you are, the richer you become because you can buy the policies that suit your needs. I know a lot of very hard working people who are shutting down their business because they cannot compete against the Walmarts of the world.
3. You obviously have not met any of the poor oppressed people here in this country. I have. I have a lot of empathy for them. I've seen them at their lowest and they are NOT "worthless souls nurtured by democrats in the God-forsaken USA." They are people who, through no fault of their own, were down-sized by Corporate America. I have friends who have nearly lost their homes because Bank of America got a bit confused and started foreclosing procedures even though they had never been late on their payments. I have a relative who lost her job and her health insurance in one fell swoop and then was diagnosed with cancer. These are America's downtrodden, not worthless souls as you would believe.
You paint people with such a broad brush. I have friends who are rich, and they are lucky that they are because they certainly aren't smart enough or hard working enough to make a living on their own like the rest of the people in this country. They are rich through no credit of their own... they were born that way. I have friends who are poor, but smart. But because they were born to a disadvantaged family, they have to work five times as hard to get by in life.
Do you think that the hedge fund managers who make millions of dollars a year really work hard? Are they really worth their salaries??? Are they job creators? Or are they greedy SOBs who pray on the ignorant trust of the average American as they steal our retirement savings out of our 401Ks?
Is it fair that a CEO makes 354 times what their employees do? You think it's fair that the average worker makes $36K a year while the bosses make $12.3M? You think they got where they are without employees to do the work?
Do you think it's fair that the rich people can buy a quality education for their children while the poor people can only send their kids to failing school because they have no other option? Is it fair that in a lot of well-to-do schools we are having more and more cheating scandals because the rich kids feel that studying hard is beneath them and they'd rather pay a smart kid to do their work for them? Is this your free market that you hold so dear?
You say you don't want to argue, but you sling so much mud around with your hatred of anyone who has a different opinion than you. I believe you are the one driving the misguided ship, but it's your ship; feel free to drive it wherever you want. That's the great thing about America and one of the things I feel Ayn Rand's fans have forgotten: Part of what has made this country great is the diversity of opinions. Too bad we have lost our respect for one another.
I sure as hell hope you aren't raising children if you can't teach them empathy for their fellow humans.
"All the best..."
(Now, back to the discussion of the book.)
I came to the inescapable conclusion that Thidwick the Light-Hearted Mooose was the Cliff Notes version of this book; I have read and enjoyed both. I do think the book could/should have been edited for length and redundancy - if you're reading this book you obviously have a working mind and don't need to be reminded of important concepts. Most people that have strong negative opinions about Ms Rand's work have not read them or totally miss the point - see Thidwick - much easier for them to understand because it has cartoons.
Aaaahhhh..., the True Defenders Of The Faith.., how amazingly obnoxious they are. Bloviate. Rinse. Repeat.
I think people need to consider that Capitalism is not Corporatism. So many see them as synonymous. They most emphatically are NOT. In a Capitalist system, competition drives innovation. When competition is gone, innovation ceases, and quality of product suffers. This will create a need for competition, which will revive competition, and Capitalism is working again.And whatever ills Capitalism may suffer, they will not be cured with government intervention. Government programming obliques and distorts the naturally corrective mechanisms within Capitalism, and produces entitlement mentality and fosters dependence in its beneficiaries, which creates an environment Capitalism will find difficult to thrive in. The result is that a government that produces social welfare programs will be cemented into place by a constituency who believes (wrongly) that their whole livelihood depends on getting their next government paycheck.
Capitalism is not magic. Capitalism is not a natural organism. It is a system. An imperfect theory.Not a totem. Not a physical law of nature. Not something to be worshiped.
Plutocratic oligarchy is the endgame of your false religion, not freedom or prosperity. Bloviate. Rinse. Repeat.
Wrong, Capitalism is natural. Even in primitive societies, two men with items wanted by the other will bargain until they reach a trade agreement.It is as old as Esau selling his birthright for a bowl of porridge.
Now, the idea of a corporate government interjecting in, interfering with, and redefining our "natural" rights? That is unnatural.
Wm. Remember, all diseased are natural
Wm. Scott wrote: "Wrong, Capitalism is natural. Even in primitive societies, two men with items wanted by the other will bargain until they reach a trade agreement.It is as old as Esau selling his birthright for a..."
Wm.,...your two primitives pounding one another until one takes the others items would be natural. Bargaining requires abstract thinking, something usually encouraged by society..., even primitive, as a basis for governance.
Again, a system. Not a matter of "faith".
What effect? It bored me intensely.
Mackay, amazing! What made it not boring, which I could get, though I did not find it boring. I found it an excellent case for why we need labor unions, but instensely? Really?
For those interested, I created a moderated group for folks to discuss Ayn Rand's ideas & fiction, as well as related ideas (e.g., libertarianism) and fiction.Group description:
"A group to discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism in a critical, yet respectful way. Discussion is not limited to what Rand wrote. In addition to your own thinking, feel free to introduce any Objectivist critiques, Objectivist scholarship, or any libertarian thought."
Link:
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Anthony wrote: "Mackay, amazing! What made it not boring, which I could get, though I did not find it boring. I found it an excellent case for why we need labor unions, but instensely? Really?"Really. It seemed so strident, so pat, so puerile disguised as "deep thought." Not my book at all.
This book allowed me to be proud of my individuality and talents. It helped me understand why so many were less than supportive of my accomplishments in or out of school, and that there will always be those that will be satisfied with the "one size fits all" mentality.
I recall reading this book right before the financial crisis happened. At the time I thought, "Great book but this could never happen." Months later as I watched the banks being forced to take Treasury money whether or not they needed it (they all had to take the money or it would make the banks who did take the money look bad), fiction became reality.
Next came the auto industry bailouts, where the law was bent to shaft bond holders and the companies remaining assets were given to the unions.
Then there was the new law limiting how much interest banks could pay on deposits. This was explained as being in the best interest of the system as certain banks were paying higher rates of interest and thus pulling capital from banks that couldn't afford to pay more.
We then saw the Affordable Health Care Act, aka (ObamaCare). The creation and implementation of this law is something right out of a Rand story. How is it that no seems capable of getting this right, fixing the problem, or accepting responsibility? It's like everyone is waiting for someone to tell them what to do or fix it as they lack the abilities themselves.
I read a study the other day that concluded the US is a country where over 1/2 the population for nearly 40 years hasn't trusted their government to take the correct action.
Loss of faith in our leaders and system is a serious matter. More and more we see incompetence as something to be expected that has to be tolerated.
Linda wrote: "This book allowed me to be proud of my individuality and talents. It helped me understand why so many were less than supportive of my accomplishments in or out of school, and that there will always..."Which is pretty much the thematic lesson of every Disney production. "You can do it!". "Believe in yourself!".
Does this make Walt Disney a "Philosopher"? Does it make Rand one?
And, Marc.., are you saying that the private corruption involved is better for everyone than the public ineptitude, and Rand made you aware of this?
Or am I misconstrued? :}
Mackay, fair enough. i was a kid, so as it was a grown up book (i had been reading hardy boys a couple of years before), i found it interesting. I did not realize for several more years, when I got to college, that it was actually supporting the creep parasites at the top. I read it more like a poor man's Great Gatsby. If you ignore the objectivism crap, it is a pretty good tale, which is all i focused on as a 13-14 year old reader
ED, shhh, you will break their fantasy bubble!
Not sure Rand would have tolerated being called a "libertarian".
Anthony wrote: "Wm. Remember, all diseased are natural"But not all that is natural are diseases.
All these arguments being made against Capitalism and Corporatism.... Could they not equally be leveled against government. For every Capitalistic system that has exploited man, I can point to five governments that has exploited man.
When power is concentrated into an elite group of men, you will find corruption.
What amazes me is how roundly people reject one idea or the other as pure poison, while simultaneously running to the other for their salvation.
It is like a lamb being suspicious of foxes, but trusting the wolves.
And conversely what is said about govt can be said about capitalism.
E.D. wrote: "And, Marc.., are you saying that the private corruption involved is better for everyone than the public ineptitude, and Rand made you aware of this?Or am I misconstrued? :} "
Hi E.D.
I'm against both private corruption and public ineptitude. Unfortunately we are seeing plenty of both these days.
There's no shortage of private corruption and ineptitude. I am however free to find another business to deal with.
In the case of government corruption and ineptitude there is no escape.
Of these two the private problem is far easier to address, laws can be passed, laws enforced, or customers find other alternatives.
The public problem is much more complex. Or as Ben Franklin said, "In the long run the worth of the nation is equal to the worth of the people."
Rand's writings made the works of Adam Smith and Hayek more appealing/understandable to the masses, or not as comments in this thread suggest.
Marc's right. The purpose of Atlas Shrugged isn't to define a political program or ideology. It is to cast the Austrian economic model in sharp relief to a market system heavily regulated by the government.That is why Hayek or Rothbard are easier to understand if someone has Rand's dystopian world in view.
Marc wrote: "E.D. wrote: "And, Marc.., are you saying that the private corruption involved is better for everyone than the public ineptitude, and Rand made you aware of this?Or am I misconstrued? :} "
Hi E.D..."
Hi Marc.
Thanks for your response. It helps me to better understand someone's general bias in conversation..,so as to not leap to conclusions.
There are escapes from government corruption and ineptitude..; pass laws..enforce laws..vote for alternative representatives. Unless you've lost hope in electoral politics due to private manipulation of the process. Somehow, I don't think you see that as the major problem. Again, however, I may be reading you wrong.
I think one can understand Smith, Hayek, or even Keynes without attending the Church of Rand. This is my major critique of her devoted "fans".., the need to paint "non-believers" as infidels. As, beyond doubt, unable to recognize "The Truth". As...less intelligent. As...the enemy.
Such is the way of religions. And tyrants.
This book made me:-Hate objectivism
-Hate utopianism
-Reconsider socialism
-Hate Rand as an author
-Find a deep chasm between myself and others who apply the "you just don't get it" clause to this book's detractors.
You can see from my goodsread profile that I've read more than 1,000 books, but Atlas Shrugged is the only book I have ever read that made me take the time to write a book in rebuttal. It is called Atlas Shrugged and Jesus Wept and it rebuts Rand's attack on the value of religion.
Have picked it up again after more than twenty years to read from a different point of view - a writer's POV. The first time in the mid 1970's I read it for the story, and I enjoyed it. In the early 1980's I read it again at the behest of my father-in-law who considered himself an objectivist. I read for the philosophy and got very depressed. I tried a third time in the early 1990's and didn't make it to the halfway point. I was impossible to be around and questioned everyone's motivations. Now twenty years later and having looked again at the Introduction I think I am ready to read it with completely different eyes - the eyes of a writer and author. I understand so much more now and am fairly stable in my own philosophy so I think I can be objective about Ayn Rand's process and reasoning behind how she wrote the story. Her aim was the story but she had developed characters with certain (current) philosophies and her question to the characters was what would happen if all the movers and shakers, inventors, thinkers etc. just left. An intriguing question to be sure.
Geoffrey wrote: "I shrugged."Genius, so did I
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (other topics)
Honoring the Self: Self-Esteem and Personal Transformation (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence (other topics)Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (other topics)
Honoring the Self: Self-Esteem and Personal Transformation (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
More...
