Atlas Shrugged
discussion
What effect did this book have on you??
What I learned from this book is that capitalism can be just as despicable a system as communism. Utopia is utopia and it will always end badly if you try it in real life.
Jjab wrote: "Didn't like it. What I've noticed in life is everyone is replaceable, the world will go on. If all the top scientists, c.e.o's, engineers all quit, there will be other people to take up those roles..." You're so cynical. ALL the smart people quit. It was not just some of the scientists, it was not just some of the engineers, it was ALL of the people who gave meaning to the word ingenuity.
Sarah wrote: "I'm not even halfway through this book but Ayn's highly one-sided tone and narrative clearly show who's side she is on. Anybody against Dagny is clearly the bad guy. It's all a bit black and white ..."Sarah, she is showing the evils of what happens when a collectivist society emerges... the other side is shown, it's just not pretty to look at. When she was 12, living in Russia, it was 1917 and the Bolshevik Revolution was under way. Rand's father owned a successful business and it was taken away by the state. She saw first-hand the evils of collectivism.
I wished I could have back the hours that I spent reading it. At least I found out for myself that Ayn Rand really was "much ado about nothing." Whatever her philosophy, it basically came down to bad writing.
Brian wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I'm not even halfway through this book but Ayn's highly one-sided tone and narrative clearly show who's side she is on. Anybody against Dagny is clearly the bad guy. It's all a bit bl..."Sarah is correct in judging that Rand is posing her narrative in a straw-man tone. She paints social philosophies as utopian evil, and capitalist philosophies as utopian ideal. This is clearly unrealistic and cursorily dismissive of the larger share of the facts in preference to present a convincing sermon. She defends her own beliefs based on her own experiences and demonizes anything contrary to them. A closed-minded missive couched in narrative form.
I would never call Atlas Shrugged a "closed-minded missive couched in narrative form." She clearly knew the difference between a free society and a collectivist society. She lived it in Russia, was living in the midst of the transformation in America, and studied it her whole life. Her mind was open and she could, as all who study history, economics, philosophy, and sociology see, that collectivism kills and freedom breaths life. She was also open about this fact. Everyone knew, publishers included, that it was a book, in fiction form, supporting the individual and freedom and attacking the evils of collectivism. No secret.
You sir, sound just like her. May you live with the open outlook you defend with words.
As I said before, I was 13-14, I thought it was a fun escapism fantasy, but I never thought anyone read it as an endorsement of the industrial Titan creeps. They were clearly the jerks. Imagine my amazement to resize that Rand thought they were the good guys and my astonishment to find that some readers bought the crap!!!!!
Kenneth wrote: "You sir, sound just like her. May you live with the open outlook you defend with words."I try, to "live with the open outlook", or free, that is. It appears to me, from my seat in the grandstand, that man is an individual (no two of us are alike) and to treat man as similar is a farce. Let man be free to rise, to fall, to get back up... but if man is not free he never rises... see the era prior to the age of liberalism (17th c) of serfs and slaves, once liberalism takes hold, man set free, creativity, ingenuity, productivity and the like… now computers and iPhones; thanks to freemen. If we had no freedom you and I would not be chatting right now and that would be a shame. You've got to love freedom (or should I say the freedom we yet still hold).
It highlights and juxtaposes the evils of collectivism and those who desire it, what Albert Jay Nock called the Political Means, the plundering of others with those who wish to live free and create and produce, what Nock called the Economic Means. The work, via fiction, reveals to those who will never examine history, the perils of collectivism and the benefits of Capitalism (freedom to buy, sell, do what you want). Those, it appears to me, who have a problem with Rand, do not like the fact that it becomes clear that if one does not rise and succeed it is their fault, no one in a free society is stopping them, it all rests on their ambition, ability, and effort. Thus, they suffer from frustrated ambition and failure, all-the-while they daydream of a "just" world which will treat them according to their "real" worth, never realizing they are plagued by a lack of self-knowledge.
So, by your definition, Rand's reliance on government "booty" at her life's end was a personal failure and her being plaqued by a lack of self knowledge?Ur was it just hypocracy?
:}U no wat ahhmm sayin'?
E.D., if I pay into my social security and then take it out, am I a thief? The immoral part of this relationship is that man is not free to opt out and to implement it knowing that the majority of men will never recover what they pay in. We are all forced to play this social security roulette by the hand and with the gun of the state. Hypocrisy or lack of self-knowledge? No. Ayn knew exactly what was going on.
Social Security is a stupid program, but you can't equate all social interactions with a failed government program. If I may baffle you, Brian, let me say that I am a hardcore liberalist. But then, so are most socialists. The way you throw around the word liberal seems to indicate you mean 'libertarian' instead. Nothing wrong with that. But don't get caught up in the rhetoric. It's fine to stand on one's own two feet and an admirable trait to aspire to achieve one's potential, but there are also times when we imperatively must rely on others, and consider the welfare of others, for the benefit of everyone. Moderation is the key, and Rand was no moderate.
I don't like calling myself anything because people have preconceived notions about what words mean and whatever they hold in their head may or may not represent my philosophy. You are a smart guy; instead of categorizing a man evaluate the nature and substance of the ideas of which he speaks. Good ideas get reject out of hand because they come from the mouths of “conservatives” or “liberals” when they should be contemplated more deeply.Yes, there are times when we need others, but free man does not need the state to tell him to help and then take his money to do it. I gladly help those who are hurting and in need but I must say I really don't like to do it much anymore... the state and the church have already taken my money to help, so where does that leave me (or the individual)? It appears to me to be socially destructive, the state taking and giving, leaving the individual to be unconcerned.
I think the danger is for the individual to become complacent. The state should be held accountable by the collective of individuals to the standards which each individual expects of it. One person can't realistically affect the actions of the state (unless they're already famous and influential), but many individuals acting together can. And that is the positive side to collective action - when it is prompted by the individuals themselves, not handed down from the state.
Brian, if Rocky robs me on Monday and gives my money to his cousin Vinny.., then robs Misha on Tuesday and gives his money to me; am I not a thief? If you define Social Security as theft, then by definition Rand was a thief. Medicare would bring us to the same conclusion, no? By her own absolutism she stands convicted.However, all rhetorical banter aside, you make many valid points worthy of discussion. The larger question.., which I believe Kenneth has put forward brilliantly.., is the corporate nature of the state. Does it exist as a seperate entity, or as individuals acting collectively? Does an individual have the right to decide which "collective" decisions are to be accepted or ignored based on his own "self-interest"?
Is democracy a "relative" concept? :}
E.D. I don't think your analogy works. If a thief steals my money and then returns me different money it makes no difference. What do I care, at least he has made his interaction with me "right". If you put your money in the bank do you get mad if the bank mingles your cash with the other cash and get upset when they return you "different" cash? Do you at once call them thieves for absconding with your money? No, of course not, you are just happy to have “your” money. With Social Security or Medicare, the State has looted the money of those who would not voluntarily opt in, even if they disagree, as I do, with the whole scheme, it is not theft to receive cash back from the thief, even if those funds are from another victim or a willing participant. Anyone receiving funds paid back today are receiving the dollars of the "young" worker now paying in and not their funds, those have been spent by the State long ago.
Kenneth wrote: "I think the danger is for the individual to become complacent. The state should be held accountable by the collective of individuals to the standards which each individual expects of it. One person..."In regards to the question you posed, on whether the state is a separate entity or individuals acting collectively. I believe the state is a separate entity. I read a good book by a German Sociologist named Franz Oppenheimer called, Der Staate; translated The State, where he historically traces the origin of the State. In every single instance, every one, he relates with historical evidence, the state has evolved out of conquest and plunder. Groups with no surplus where of little interest to the roving nomads who would plunder and move on, the groups or societies with a substantial surplus attracted the nomads, or roving bandits, eventually they realized it was far better to stay put and live off the surplus of the conquered peoples. In turn, the conquered peoples considered this an advance over worrying about being periodically and sporadically raped, plundered, and killed. The conquered peoples have all they had before, minus the surplus, with the benefit of protection from the now, stationary bandits. So, based on his historical study, the state is separate and man comes to accept it as an advance over the alternative. I would suggest the read for anyone wanting to understand the origins of the state.
If the concept of the state is an external entity and in historical precedence was deemed superior to lack thereof, why advocate against it?
I wouldn’t say came to be considered superior. I would say came to be accepted as an advance over the alternative. That is, if I have a choice you showing up at my city every year or two, raping my women, stealing my possessions, and killing a few of us or you can rule me, protect me, let me live, and all I have to do is give you the surplus, well, I will take the later every day. Just as the states throughout history have come to accept this as an advance, if we see the state through this historical lens, America is frighteningly similar. We all pay tribute; sacrifice our freedoms, for the good of America, for our protection from the evil forces. I guess today, that would be terrorism.Think about the state, they hold a monopoly on the use of force and violence. I am not allowed to kill another man; if I do the state deems one man killing another as evil (as would I). However, when the state kills millions in the name of the state it is somehow just (whereas I deem this a greater evil for many more have died)? Or think about the fact that the state is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by services rendered or from voluntary contribution but by coercion. The state has nothing of its own, everything the state has, has been taken or stated another way; the state only comes into existence if there is surplus to plunder. No surplus, no state.
From my seat in the grandstand, I look at Oppenheimer, Nock, Spencer, and Rothbard (all wrote on the state) and see the state emerging out of conquest of the people, holding a monopoly of force, demanding tribute, I see the peoples coming to accept this as an advance over their previous plundered state, and eventually accepting this as a way of life and after a generation or two it is a way of life. Have not most Americans accepted our way of life as the price for freedom? Is not the state noble and good? Do we not worship our presidents, placing their faces on mountains and erect gigantic (extravagant) monuments and memorials to them? In America who is God? It is not some metaphysical figure with an incarnate son, Jesus; it is the State and Lincoln is the incarnate son.
To equate democratic repuplicanism with the tryranny imposed by warlords and bandits seems a feeble attack on modern liberal political thinking. Serfs did not vote for Lord of the Manor. Citizens vote for those fellow citizens expected to represent their interests in government. The state is not accepted.., it is elected. If you're unhappy with it's current manifestation.., argue your alternative and win over your fellow citizens to your veiws. Then win elections.Young children want to do what they want, when they want. Does that mean parents are evil because they restrict them? By extrapolation, is the state evil because the majority of it's citizens support taxation to achieve social goals or limit an individuals action in pursuit of their self-interests?
By what mechanism do we balance the rights of individuals in relation to each other, other than "the state"?
Indeed, E.D.It is the individuals who elect the state. If the system is broken, the state cannot be blamed - those who allowed it to reach that juncture can. After all, the state is just a subset of the people themselves.
Rand liked individual meritocracy, so I doubt she would complain about state approved conglomerates or corporate lobbying. These are, after all, the products of the most successful individuals who may or may not care for the welfare of their constituency.
What I provided is an historical account related from the studies of the above mentioned authors and juxtaposed history with today's state. In addition I used this to show why I have come to my conclusions. I am not trying to "attack"..."modern liberal political thinking." Especially if by "liberal" you mean today's political leaders who call themselves "liberal” because the “conservatives, although their language is different and if you listen to them you would think otherwise, are also for an all-powerful state.I would argue that voting makes little difference. What we get is one brand of looter and trimmer over another brand of looter and trimmer. Hitler came to power (whether you believe he was elected or appointed does not matter) in a democracy, therefore, if we believe your analysis, all of the German Jews consented to be murder, they in essence in a democracy committed suicide. I think not. Voting in a democracy does not give the leader carte blanche nor does it guarantee consent of the people nor that evil will not be done.
I also have a difficult time with your analogy of grown people as children in need of a parent, the state, to keep them in check. People, most that I know of or from historical analysis, do not run wild when unchecked, we move and act in our self-interest. I treat you well and respectful (I hope and intend) because likewise I would like to be treated in the same manner, and in-turn we both benefit from mutual kindness and respect. In my example, which can be paralleled to any action of man, it either immediately or ultimately harms me to harm you (be unkind or disrespectful in this forum) for then I lose a new acquaintance and stimulating dialogue.
I also do not believe the majority of people want to be taxed and gladly pay taxes. I think this would be easily proved by making the income tax voluntary. At once a large majority of the people would no longer pay it.
“By what mechanism do we balance the rights of individuals in relation to each other, other than "the state"?” I would say the rights of man are what reigns supreme. The government (note this is the first instance of my use of the word “government” in our dialogue) is needed to protect our rights. In a “just” society this is the function, what every advance government has evolved into is a “state” as described above in my previous couple of posts, where our rights are taken, our power is taken, our wealth is taken; and in an equal relationship. Every time the state grows in rights, power, or wealth, mans is equally reduced. I would say the “balance” is, or what I would say, “What is just”, would be to get back to this principle, which is in our founding in the Declaration of Independence.
Kenneth wrote: "Indeed, E.D.It is the individuals who elect the state. If the system is broken, the state cannot be blamed - those who allowed it to reach that juncture can. After all, the state is just a subset..."
Kenneth, in Atlas Shrugged, Rand hammers any association of business with the state. She also did so in her non-fiction work, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" where, in the essays by her and others (Greenspan wrote a few of these, ironically, because years later he sold his soul to the state) wrote and advocated for their separation and non-relationship.
There two books that come to mind and can add to this conversation, the first being The 10 000 Year Explosion How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. Just as man has domesticated wolves to create dogs the same has been done with man. Some populations are far more governable than others. Just as tag wagging friendly dogs have a reproductive advantage, the same can be seen with human populations. Throughout history attempts at overthrowing governments or resisting the state often leads to death.
The second book is The End of Power From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States Why Being In Charge Isn t What It Used to Be. Not only is power changing but we haven't seen any substantial changes in governance for several hundred years now. Think about that for just a moment, science and society both make huge advances but our governing structures have not seen any such change.
Marc wrote: "There two books that come to mind and can add to this conversation, the first being The 10 000 Year Explosion How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. Just as man has domesticat..."Thanks! Have you read both of these? What is your perspective of man then, flowing from your readings and a priori knowledge? I read an article by Ralph Adams Crams, written many moons ago, which helped me understand man why he is the way he is. Here is the link: http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/Ful...
Brian wrote: "E.D., if I pay into my social security and then take it out, am I a thief? The immoral part of this relationship is that man is not free to opt out and to implement it knowing that the majority of ..."Actually you can opt out of the system by not paying your taxes at all and being self employed. And yes, I know people who do exactly that. But then again, we all pay taxes if we wish to be legitimate and even though I don`t directly benefit from agricultural subsidies or natural disaster benefits, guess what, I gotta pay my taxes that go to those expenditures. So how is that so different From SS "premiums" other than that I pay for the latter separately?
Yes, Brian, Hitler came into power by democratic means but maintained power by dictatorial ones. Many despots have done exactly that. Iraq`s Baathist power became institutionalized when Hussein enforced it after being elected in a democratic manner.
Brian, and when those with a surfeit of wealth are taxed more heavily, then it is the rest whose tax burden is relieved or prime rates are minimized. You talk as if everyone`s rights are impinged upon whereas when the state becomes more powerful, remember there are winners and losers. There is nothing sacrosanct about wealth and that is Rand`s weak spot and yours.
Brian wrote: "What is your perspective of man then, flowing from your readings and a priori knowledge? "That was a very interesting article,even more enlightening considering it was written nearly 80 years ago.
In short I think man survives however he can. I have read the books I mentioned above and concluded that our genetic makeup determines more than just eye color or height.
Some cultures and people are more governable and do better in what we consider the modern world. The conflict comes when these worlds collide.
The Aboriginal communal society makes perfect sense and worked very well for thousands of years in isolation. Just as the Chinese system of small peasant farmers overseen by a strong central government has proven to be very stable.
Both environments and systems have produced people that are a good match with the conditions. Just as the farmer selects pigs with large hams for market so government and society selects it's citizens or subjects.
In our Western societies where improvement and more is a priority I think Rand is very correct. However just as we run the risk of the looters taking to much from the highly productive members of society we also run the risk of failing to provide for our entire tribe.
I have no qualms with paying taxes for roads, police, the military, libraries, or even basic human needs for the lower elements of our society. I do however draw the line when a flat screen TV, athletic shoes, or central air conditioning are defined as essential human needs.
Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, Brian, Hitler came into power by democratic means but maintained power by dictatorial ones. Many despots have done exactly that. Iraq`s Baathist power became institutionalized when Hussein enf..."Yes, even in a democracy it does not guarantee the people are safe from evil.
Geoffrey wrote: "Brian, and when those with a surfeit of wealth are taxed more heavily, then it is the rest whose tax burden is relieved or prime rates are minimized. You talk as if everyone`s rights are impinged u..."In Atlas Shrugged Rand makes clear that wealth is only sacrosanct because it is a byproduct of a free man being productive, creating, and innovating. Wealth obtained via the state, confiscation, is not something to be admired but rather to be held in contempt.
Marc wrote: "Brian wrote: "What is your perspective of man then, flowing from your readings and a priori knowledge? "That was a very interesting article,even more enlightening considering it was written nearl..."
Marc wrote: "Brian wrote: "What is your perspective of man then, flowing from your readings and a priori knowledge? "
That was a very interesting article,even more enlightening considering it was written nearl..."
Thank you for your insight; I find your comments interesting, but it also leads me to go along with Cram's insight, that man is not evolving and that man, as whole, has not advanced much and will only expand via the “sparks” of greatness that emerge among us. However, I tend to believe that regardless of location, ethos, and a variety of other variables that man is best off when he is as free as he possibly can be. I will have to investigate those texts to gain further insight. Feel free to give me more, if you have the time and desire. Thanks!
How does one obtain wealth in modern, realistic America, without doing so at the exploit of others? The very concept of profit instantiates the need to get more than the value of goods offered - and that's just the way it is.The problem with unchecked freedoms is that it allows for the freedom to do great evils which restrict the freedoms of others. One man's free actions may limit the freedom of those acted upon.
There's no magic way out of this of course. It's just how society functions. I'd be hesitant to unilaterally praise such a thing as virtuous in and of itself. Tools, systems these are neither good nor bad - as the old maxim goes.
That's why I argue Rand's idealism could never exist in reality. It flies against human nature.
Rather I believe we should be in support of a system which allows the greatest possible freedom, while protecting basic human rights. I do mean basic here, not the more colloquially popular concept of "rights" which is arbitrarily applied to anything and everything.
Neither capitalism nor hardline socialism can offer this - but a combination of both, judiciously applied - can. See the Scandinavian states for examples of how prosperity can be achieved by moderation.
yes, Brian, in regards to a communist state nationalising businesses without compensation, is a travesty and evil. only when justly compensated, is the eiezure moral. Liberals are divided on some of these issues, so any attempt by conservatives to paint us with the same swatch of color is simply wrong.There was a SCOTUS decisión in 2003 in which the city of New London, (whose county I grew up in) decided to seize by eminent domain, a piece of property they wished to convert to business usage as it would enhance city coffers from the additional taxes it could collect. The decisión went in favor of the city. SCOTUS was Split on this, but not on liberal/conservative lines. Gary Hart, who was still secretly behind the scenes in the D power structure was insisting that this be played as a major point of issue in the 08 elections as it would demonstrate the Ds are for private property. Again, many of us on the left were chagrined by these additional powers granted to local municipalities.
Brian wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Brian, and when those with a surfeit of wealth are taxed more heavily, then it is the rest whose tax burden is relieved or prime rates are minimized. You talk as if everyone`s righ..."except the flaw is that wealth is created, in Atlas Shrugged and elsewhere primarily by stealing, often through legal means, natural resources and exploiting both the worker and the consumer
no, Kenneth,it is posible to accrue wealth without exploiting others. People who bought Apple stock 30 years ago rose to riches. there was nothing exploitive about Apple.
Kenneth wrote: "How does one obtain wealth in modern, realistic America, without doing so at the exploit of others? The very concept of profit instantiates the need to get more than the value of goods offered - an..."Hi Ken,
I'm missing something here. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Zappos, etc... don't seem to have exploited others. Last time I checked my wife uses Zappos because she likes the shoes and their business model. I've seen people willingly pay money for iPods and iPads, not because the government made them and they didn't have to pay for other peoples devices either.
The Whole Foods customers seem just as happy as the customers at Walmart, no one seems exploited. I know people who provide produce for both stores and they don't seem to feel they are exploited.
With very few exceptions about the only area where people seem to feel robbed and exploited is when it comes to government.
Don't like your job or the service you receive, you can go elsewhere. Don't like the treatment you receive at the DMV or IRS you are out of luck.
The Scandinavian examples are overplayed. Norway for one has been fortunate enough to have discovered oil and natural gas only after it had been a functional democracy for a considerable number of years. All of them also have a homogenous society with a shared religion and culture that goes back centuries. A balance which is being threatened with the arrival of immigrants that do not share these same values. In short it cannot be replicated elsewhere.
Rands idealism is reality and it does exist, especially the part about looters and crony capitalism. Every single product in your life has come from those seeking more. Adam Smiths observation that the baker does not supply your daily bread out of concern for your needs but rather his own selfish personal needs is still the nature of man.
Brian wrote: "What I provided is an historical account related from the studies of the above mentioned authors and juxtaposed history with today's state. In addition I used this to show why I have come to my con..."Brian, by "liberal" I meant the evolution of thought Post-Enlightenment as it currently exists in Western democracies. I, too, as you touched upon earlier above, try to avoid labeling due to the manipulations used. I shall try to be clear on such things going forward.
Hitler's usurping of power (through The Enabling Act) indeed shows a flaw in democracy. It also points to the psychology, if not pathology, of the Deutche Volk at that time. There is much study on this topic, still. Voting does not ensure perfection of outcome. Yet, I would not see it as worthless. Like Churchill, I see it as the worst method of governance except for all the others. One we can work to improve.
Are grown men like children? In many ways. Marc's posts point to well thought-out reasons why one can argue so. Again, my intent was to profer the state as a mechanism to balance individual rights through collective agreement. Not all men see ethical behavior as being in their own self-interest. You and I do (as I've deduced from our brief interaction), but we are only two among many.
Taxes? Ahhh.., the rub. Another analogy: No one would volunteer to pay for groceries, but no grocer would supply them for free and continue to be a grocer. And, most telling, people choose to eat.
Disagreed, Marc. Maybe you've not heard about the work conditions in Chinese factories where Apple products are made, for example. It's too easy to compartmentalize the effects and ignore the bigger picture.
Kenneth wrote: "Disagreed, Marc. Maybe you've not heard about the work conditions in Chinese factories where Apple products are made, for example. It's too easy to compartmentalize the effects and ignore the bigge..."no matter how pretty you package it, the only way to accumulate wealth is to take it from others, then, you can pass it down for a few generations and folks forget where it came from and get all self righteous about not exploiting others or nature to have what they have, but the fact remains
Hi Kenneth and Anthony, You are indeed correct about the work conditions in many factories in China or other parts of the world that create products for Western society. These conditions should be improved and could be with minimal impact on the cost of products.
However this transaction is still a plus, even to the Chinese workers. Prior to Apple building a factory and offering jobs what did these people do? I doubt many of the Chinese who have recently climbed out of poverty as a result of these jobs would like to see these factories dismantled so they could return to their rural villages and live on less than a dollar a day.
Wealth is also far less permanent than you indicate. New money makes up far more of the world richest than old money. Gone are the Guggenheim's, Carnegie's, etc... Of greater concern than some of the residual old money still lingering is the less than ethical means by which some of the new rich have acquired their fortunes (Carlos Slim- Mexico, the Russian Oligarchs, and others with their hands in the public purse).
I don't resent the fortunes of Bill Gates or Lakshmi Mittal, but I do find Carlos Slim repulsive. Something I believe Ayn Rand would agree with and tried to illustrate in Atlas Shrugged.
I suppose slave to indentured sharecropper could also be considered "social climbing" from certain points of view. Nets around factories to catch suicidal employees "could" be seen as compassionate. If one were to have the satisfaction of "sticking to principle" while bolstering ones self-interest.Capitalism isn't evil. Certain capitalists are. There's the "invisible hand", and the "sleight of hand". To trust in the first while ignoring the second--as a virtue--seems illogical and wreaks of zealotry. :}
Marc wrote: "However this transaction is still a plus, even to the Chinese workers."Profiting from the terrible situation of these people is the essence of this terrible exploitation. Betterment of their condition is just a byproduct.
Marc wrote: "I don't resent the fortunes of Bill Gates or Lakshmi Mittal"
It is just because you don't understand their fortunes are built on exploitation - not only of the workers but also of you as a consumer.
Giansar wrote: "Marc wrote: "However this transaction is still a plus, even to the Chinese workers."Profiting from the terrible situation of these people is the essence of this terrible exploitation. Betterment o..."
yep
It was really helpful in that it taught me to avoid the rest of her books. Stiff, heartless and silly.
Magnus Ver wrote: "It was really helpful in that it taught me to avoid the rest of her books. Stiff, heartless and silly."Thanks for that post.
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...
I enjoyed the plot, and I think Rand does a good job of painting a picture of the world created by her ideological enemies. But 1,000 pages of small-type run-on sentences and brow-beating sermons is a bit much.