If you could only choose one book

[Steven]

In the beginning of the TV show falling skies, the characters have to retreat. One of them is a history professor. He sees a pile of books and can only choose to take one and he does not know if he's coming back. He chooses a tale of two cities over 20,000 leagues under the sea. My choice would be journey to the center of the earth. What would your one choice be?

[Feliks]

Probably the same pick as the professor.

Because its really got everything, and it stands up to re-reading no matter how many times one returns to it. There's others of Dickens work's which are funnier, lengthier, others more packed and crammed with invention and characters and sweeping themes (Bleak House, Little Dorritt, etc) but none seem to have the perfect combination of elements found in this novel. Its rarely ever even considered when critics muse over the best English novel ever; (that usually goes to 'Bleak House') but really--for most readers--I think this is the most beloved piece he ever did.

Other authors than Dickens? Other authors who had as much to say and said what they had to say, as well as he? Hard to name any. He's so far above the rest of our culture's authors I wouldn't know where to look. I'm a big fan of long, sprawling novels --Thomas Mann for example---and I like epic poetry (Dante for instance) but I'd never take anyone else to an island but something from Dickens.

[Alfie]

Tale of Two Cities would be at the top of my list. There are some contemporary books that would battle for my choice, Under The Beetle Cellar, for example, but Tale of Two Cities would probably win the battle because it is timeless and I'm not sure some of the others will hold up in the same was Tale of Two Cities has.

[Colleen]

Only one book? I suspect I would try to find a way to cheat and bring considerably more than one book because there are so many amazing books to choose from. I love Tale of Two Cities; I also love War and Peace; I love Whitman's Civil War poetry; I love Pride and Prejudice. I love works of history.

I choose different books for different reasons. Each genre fills a different need in my mind and in my soul so the choice is so not fair! :) At the end of the day, I would probably have to choose War and Peace because it is so much longer and would take longer to get through with each read. Who knows, at the end of the day, I might even come to appreciate Tolstoy's preaching.

[Feliks]

No special rules for girls!

:D

[Jdcomments]

The context of the decision would affect my choice. If it was the same as the tv show and I was faced with the possibility of having to reconstruct human civilization with a small group I would take Atlas Shrugged because not only is it one of my favorite books but it also is inspiring in its message that an individual can make a significant difference in a world without centralized authority.

Given the situation that message could be seminal. It might result in a world that refuted Hobbe's basic contentions.

[Feliks]

You'd take Ayn Rand to a deserted island where --in order to survive--you need to rely on your companions? Good luck with that scheme! Because of course, the other message of that book is that no one really need ever help anyone else. I'm sure I don't know what 'significant difference' Rand suggests the world requires ...which is more important than that we all pull together. And after all, not living according to Rand, doesn't mean we live according to Hobbes.

[Jdcomments]

Feliks wrote: "You'd take Ayn Rand to a deserted island where --in order to survive--you need to rely on your companions? Good luck with that scheme! Because of course, the other message of that book is that no o..."
That is a superficial reading of her philosophy and I expected just such a comment.

If you ever read the book you would know she not only is not an anarchist (anti-government) but actually believes the government serves an important service in providing legal environment that allows contractual, voluntary relationships between people.

What she does abhor is the self proclaimed moralistic collectivism of statism which ascribes to the government the right to seize the fruits of the labors of an individual for the "common good" (whatever that is). She recognized it for the destructive envy that it really is, and she spoke from experience having witnessed the results of the Russian Revolution first hand.

Thank you for your all too obvious comment- it allowed me to further explain my choice.

[Feliks]

Its hardly a 'superficial comment'. This is what the world thinks of her and her writings. Its the #1 most common debate about her; the #1 most frequent controversy associated with her. For you not to recognize this, (and suggest that we just haven't read the book as closely as you have) is rather a hoot. Its attitude from a 'faculty room' somewhere.

What often disappoints 'intellectual preeners' is that what is often "obvious" and "mundane" is very necessary commonsense. When you're on a deserted island, the issue is not going to be collectivism. That's ludicrous. The much more vital issue is going to be, survival; not property rights. We survive when we work together, its as simple as that. Sorry if this doesn't captivate you enough, mentally.

Like the Spanish say: 'some people cannot see a priest standing on a mountain of sugar'.

[Jdcomments]

Feliks wrote: "Its hardly a 'superficial comment'. This is what the world thinks of her and her writings. Its the #1 most common debate about her; the #1 most frequent controversy associated with her. For you not..."

Its what some of the world thinks of her writing- and it certainly doesn't mean they are correct. Sorry- truth is not a matter of majority opinion.

And working together is always vital for society- you are creating a straw man by implying otherwise.

Deferring to the obvious and mundane is a lazy way to avoid thinking about the problem.

Using your deserted island scenario the question is- Do the people voluntarily work together according to their self interest or do you have a Lord of the Flies scenario where authorized force in the hands of a small group becomes the basis for governing?

If someone does not want to contribute should they be allowed to go off by themselves?

If there happens to be a genius among them who invents something amazing, should it be the collective property of the group or should it belong to the person who created it?

You have trivialized the original scenario by creating an imminent question of survival which was not the way I interpreted the original question. I am thinking longer term about the recreation of society and therefore these are all pertinent questions.

And I was going to offer my own cute little aphorism to end this, but decided- why bother?

[[deleted user]]

*high five JD*

I wouldn't select Atlas Shrugged, but I still like the book.

Hmmm...this is a difficult choice. I am looking at my own collection of books, and struggling with the choice of "one". I am torn between one of my literature anthologies, Ussher's Annals of the World, and Plutarch's Lives. I would probably die trying to choose lmao.

Hmmm....I think I would probably go with Ussher's Annals of the World. Even though I am not a christian, this is an outstanding book, would take a very long time to read through each time, and it would take years to soak in every crumb of knowledge one could gain from it.

[Mari]

I would definitely take by Marcel Proust although since it is technically 7 books, I'd have to take a very large inclusive edition- which would probably weigh more than I do :)

[Brad]

The question seeks a completely subjective answer, so there is no wrong answer. Yet, some of the fun is disagreeing. So I want to enjoy disagreeing with those who would choose an Ayn Rand book as their only book. Gosh, even if you like some of her ideas, don't you find her writing to be as turgid as cold gravy? If you are interested in libertarianism, there must be someone out there who is more fun to read than Rand.

Seriously, I would love to know if there is a serious work on libertarianism that also has literary merit. I would like to read such a book.

As for me, I would take For Whom the Bell Tolls. I have a personal reason for that choice. I read it during the winter session of my freshman year in college. It was the '72-73 school year. And that is when I mark the early, cautious steps beginning my intellectual adulthood.

[Feliks]

Let's start over without rancor.

Jdcomments wrote: "Its what some of the world thinks of her writing- and it certainly doesn't mean they are correct. Sorry- truth is not a matter of majority opinion...."

But it's really not a matter of majorities or minorities either; I'd say. It's a matter of competence and skill. Because the proportion of readers who received Rand's ideas included the best minds of the 20th century and they found her philosophy ...well, at the very least, 'poorly constructed'.

Jdcomments wrote: "And working together is always vital for society- you are creating a straw man by implying otherwise...."

All I intended was to remind you of it, since in your advance of another principle entirely--that of Rand's--'togetherness' seemed cast aside. Rand's ideas taken to their ultimate end, lead to a rather dangerous belief-system: unrestrained selfishness.

Jdcomments wrote: "Deferring to the obvious and mundane is a lazy way to avoid thinking about the problem...."

Except in cases where germane life issues must be dealt with directly and immediately, rather than retreating into abstraction. No one's avoiding Ayn Rand's ideas--or any other solutions--as long as they're viable.

Jdcomments wrote: "Using your deserted island scenario the question is- Do the people voluntarily work together according to their self interest or do you have a Lord of the Flies scenario where authorized force in the hands of a small group becomes the basis for governing?..."

Voluntarily supporting a common interest (survival) does not necessarily require over-zealous authority nor result in the denial of one's personal rights. Shirking civic duty, however--in favor of private prerogatives--merely leads to feudalism all over again; capitalism, and jungle law. Just as fearsome in it's way, as 'unchecked rule by the few'.

Jdcomments wrote: "If someone does not want to contribute should they be allowed to go off by themselves?..."

No, because on an island, resources are finite. Pretending to be remote and exclusive is a conceit which can't be honored. Someone who goes off by themselves--they are still using communal goods which need fair distribution. Commandeering resources for one's private use leads to barons, estates, private armies.

Jdcomments wrote: "If there happens to be a genius among them who invents something amazing, should it be the collective property of the group or should it belong to the person who created it?..."

No idea is the 'property' of any man to begin with. Ideas are contained in nature around us, and are discovered by men, they do not originate in any 'one' mind. In a capitalist society, profit is sometimes guaranteed to an inventor or artist, but amazing ideas (helpful ideas) in themselves are for all society to benefit by.

For, if a man devises a destructive invention, we are all negatively affected by it too. Thus: a man cannot rightly call either an amazing weapon or an amazing medicine, 'his own' because he does not restrict their effects to himself, alone. Regardless of his desire for personal gain, he must accept the terms disposed to him in return for its distribution. Be they 'uneven' terms, or not.

Meanwhile, if he has discovered a secret resource--say, a fruit tree--and wishes to keep its nutrition just for himself--that falls again, under the concept of 'hoarding'.

Jdcomments wrote: "You have trivialized the original scenario by creating an imminent question of survival which was not the way I interpreted the original question. I am thinking longer term about the recreation of society and therefore these are all pertinent questions...."

Fair enough. I accept this complaint and I apologize for any discord. You defend your liking for Ayn Rand and I do actually respect that. I admit my tone was the first to cause strife here. Mea culpa.

I just thought Rand's philosophy an odd choice for any situation where 'society starts over'. After all, many indigenous/native peoples have long practiced communal living and very successfully too.

You provided a bit of Rand's background and lifestory. To this I would reply that Rand was only born in 1905 and moved to the USA in 1926. Her exposure to 'collectivism' was thus was dominated by her brief exposure to bolshevism, which is but one application of socialist thought. And a poor one, at that.

[Xdyj]

I think if I want to choose a book set in this period I would choose Ninety-Three over A Tale of Two Cities.

[Holly]

My choice would be Steinbeck; East of Eden.

[Bob]

If only one book, it would have to be "Labyriths" by Jorge Luis Borges because (1) my imagination is going to require as much stimulation as possible, and (2) I can keep re-reading indefinitely and still be in awe of Borges' erudition, his prose, and his fantasies.

[Jdcomments]

Feliks wrote: "Let's start over without rancor.

Jdcomments wrote: "Its what some of the world thinks of her writing- and it certainly doesn't mean they are correct. Sorry- truth is not a matter of majority opini..."

While I appreciate your effort in comprising this response, I have decided that in the interest of not abusing a dead horse I am not going to reply to each of your rebuttals. I can blame it on the law of diminishing returns, or the inability of reason to ever really change a person's mind. Whatever, I think going back and forth like this is serving no purpose.

I will make one exception- your dismissal of Rand's history with collectivism.

In her "brief" exposure to it she saw her family's successful and comfortable life ruined by those pursuing the "common good" and that, rightfully, informed her philosophy.

While you may consider this not that important I would suggest trying to live through a trauma like that before you draw that kind of conclusion.

As for your opinion that the Russian Revolution was just a "poor" application of socialism, well that really summarizes why I don't believe we will ever have a meeting of the minds. For me socialism has never had a successful application.

I would like to end by reiterating my original point: Rand's is a philosophy of hope and belief in the decency of people. Her rational self interest (all too often dismissed as selfishness)is a belief that men could and should live their lives in pursuit of their happiness- no different than the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of Jefferson. Maybe because she was an atheist and did not leaven her thought with spiritual hope it sounds more harsh than it should. If so, try reading the Christian philospher Michael Novak who has written of the nobility and Christian charity of the capitalistic system which is predicated on self interest.

The point is that for most of history we have lived under governments justified by Hobbes rationale- authoritarian and repressive because that is what we needed to control our brutish and selfish natures.

Liberalism (starting with Locke) took exception to this- believing we as individuals could form successful societies.

Rand believed exactly that- that we could, by following our rational interests, create a society of individuals who cooperate and flourish and who are happy. And she believed that it was immoral to restrict the pursuit of that individual happiness by government actions which decide that the "common good" supercedes all else. In other words. Leviathan is no longer needed.

I am with Rand. That is why Atlas Shrugged is my choice for this question.

[[deleted user]]

The Bible, but if you want me to answer with fiction, then I have NO idea whatsoever. I have too many favorites.

[Jdcomments]

Raevyn wrote: "The Bible, but if you want me to answer with fiction, then I have NO idea whatsoever."

Good answer.

At one time it probably would have been the predominant choice for a question like this.

What does it say about us that now it is an outlier? Nothing good I suspect.

[Feliks]

Jdcomments wrote: "In her "brief" exposure to it ..."

Indeed it was brief. In 1926 she was just 21; she had been merely 12 years old in 1917 (as near as I can figure and remembering the Russian calendar difference). So in her formative years--her mid-teens--she saw a jumble of political activity which could hardly have made much sense to her. Perhaps her tender years accounts for the inchoate and over-reactive 'pseudo-philosophy' she later developed. In general, I don't place much credence in what any 21 yr has to say or think about anything --they are not adults--and this rather goes to prove that rule.

Jdcomments wrote: "she saw her family's successful and comfortable life ruined by those pursuing the "common good" and that, rightfully, informed her philosophy...."

Except, bolshevism wasn't orchestrated for the common-good; it was a stunted form of socialism. So its irrelevant what she thought she saw. The crux is what it actually was.

p.s. Ideals of 'the common good' go back a lot farther than Russian history; of course. They are part of our noblest intellectual and spiritual heritage. Anyone refuting them needs a lot more impetus behind them than mere outrage at the bolsheviks. They're battling the best philosophers of Ancient Greece.

Jdcomments wrote: "While you may consider this not that important I would suggest trying to live through a trauma like that before you draw that kind of conclusion...."

Many people suffered. I don't belittle her personal emotional trauma, but at the same time, it doesn't excuse her from devising false theories based on inaccurate observations.

p.s. No one has to 'live through a revolution' in order to talk about politics. Scientists don't place their fingertips on the nucleus of an atom, astronomers don't travel to distant galaxies.

Jdcomments wrote: "As for your opinion that the Russian Revolution was just a "poor" application of socialism... For me socialism has never had a successful application...."

It's not merely my opinion; its the opinion of the leading thinkers who ever considered the matter. It would be your opinion as well if you looked into it. Meanwhile--regardless of the events of 1917-- applied socialism is successful all around the world in many forms, many societies, and in many previous phases of history too. Even in our own country, socialism has played a part in making lives better.

Jdcomments wrote: "well that really summarizes why I don't believe we will ever have a meeting of the minds...."

Failing to have a 'meeting of the minds' is a commonplace between individuals. No regrets there. What was developing was open antipathy and I already apologized for my part in that; and now I will politely express chagrin that you are disengaging.

C'est la vie!

[Feliks]

"Raevyn wrote: "The Bible, but..."

Jdcomments wrote: Good answer.

At one time it probably would have been the predominant choice for a question like this.

What does it say about us that now it is an outlier? Nothing good I suspect. ..."

So you're in favor of The Biblical world-view as well as private property rights? My goodness.

All we need now is someone else to come along and propose the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Then this island would be really well-equipped.

[Jdcomments]

Feliks wrote: ""Raevyn wrote: "The Bible, but..."

Jdcomments wrote: Good answer.

At one time it probably would have been the predominant choice for a question like this.

What does it say about us that now it i..."

So you believe the Biblical view excludes private property rights?

I believe most people (to use your frequent source of authority) would read the Bible as extolling personal charity and individual moral behavior- not advocating big government socialism.

As for enjoying wealth- as Jesus said when a disciple asked why they were wasting money instead of "redistributing it"- "The poor will always be with us".

Its so interesting to see how people see things differently.

As I mentioned above, read Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism to get a preeminent Christian Philosopher's defense of capitalism as the best system for realizing Christian values.

Real morality requires personal choice and sacrifice- both of which require "personal property" (sacrificing another's property is not moral or difficult and that was Rand's ultimate complaint).

Then again you may not want to read the book- as someone who seems to respect Socialism you probably would not enjoy it.

I have enjoyed our give and take- as I said I don't think reason and logic ever really changes another person's heartfelt opinions, but it does allow one to hone and refine his own thinking.

Happy Holidays.

[Monty J]

Jdcomments wrote: "For me socialism has never had a successful application."


Germany? Sweden? Denmark? Really?

[Monty J]

Jdcomments wrote: "And she believed that it was immoral to restrict the pursuit of that individual happiness by government actions which decide that the "common good" supercedes all else."


She also believed that government shouldn't have the ability to take people's property by taxation and that virtually all property and services should be privately owned.

Rand worshipers like Phil Gramm (who had Glass-Steagall repealed) and Alan Greenspan (who refused to regulate derivatives and sat on his hands while banks gorged themselves on sub-prime mortgages) used her philosophy as an excuse to dismantle or not enforce protective regulations, leading directly to the Bush-era Great Recession. From which, coincidentally, many billionaires profited handsomely.

The proof of Rand's toxic influence is in the economic trends since her influence has grown: wealth redistribution and hyper-concentration in the top 1% and the destruction of America's middle class, neither of which is healthy.

Thanks to the neo-Randists, America is starting to look like Mexico, a throwback to feudalism. To the 1% this may look like progress, but it makes a mockery of democracy.

Here's my a circumstantial argument that Randism is communist psychological weapon designed to destroy capitalism from within: http://www.wattpad.com/story/19003760...

[Jdcomments]

Monty J wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "For me socialism has never had a successful application."


Germany? Sweden? Denmark? Really?"

Monty J wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "And she believed that it was immoral to restrict the pursuit of that individual happiness by government actions which decide that the "common good" supercedes all else."


I read your story- sorry fabulist nonsense is not my thing.

[Feliks]

Jdcomments wrote: "I have enjoyed our give and take- as I said I don't think reason and logic ever really changes another person's heartfelt opinions, but it does allow one to hone and refine his own thinking...."

I've enjoyed it as well. No hard feelings. I admire anyone who sticks to their guns, and you have that.

Here is what I value from a discussion with someone who knows their subject--here is what would 'alter my thinking', (rather than --as you say--reason and logic):

Facts. Facts are 'game-changers'. Data. Information. Factoids. Perhaps even 'trivia', or miscellany.

People have tremendous amounts of knowledge; as we all study different subjects and all read different authors and different books. We're all at different levels of familiarity with historical topics.

So if an opinion of mine is ever based on a incorrect 'root fact'--than I want to know about it, and I will sincerely thank whoever apprises me that I'm resting my argument on a falsehood.

[Jdcomments]

Monty J wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "For me socialism has never had a successful application."


Germany? Sweden? Denmark? Really?"

Really.

Social welfare states that are (semi) viable because of their capitalist systems that create wealth are hardly Socialism- or do you think there is no private property in those countries you mentioned?

See: http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism...

They are actually the hybrid of Bismarck who created them to battle 19th century communist movements.

And take a look at Europe- with its high unemployment and stagnating production its hardly somewhere I'd point to proudly. By imposing their high tax structures to pay for their "social benefits" they are strangling themselves- which is why even the Scandinavian countries are lowering their taxes and benefits : http://www.thelocal.se/20140121/swede...

Now China- oh wait, they gave up on Socialism years ago...

[Monty J]

Jdcomments wrote: "I read your story- sorry fabulist nonsense is not my thing."


Supposition and extrusion can be just as useful as fact and proof, which are so often easily concealed. Perilous to dismiss the intangible, and just as perilous is the assumption of benevolent intent on the part of Ayn Rand, a self-contradiction on its face. Think about it. It is incongruent for Rand to propose a benevolent philosophy when she's denounced altrusim.

The proof is in the consequences of Randism, which, for the middle class and poor are dire and incontrovertible as I have illustrated so clearly with walking-talking corpse of Alan Greenspan.

As the toxin spreads, the Kremlin smiles, not having fired a shot. Rand's ghost smiles. Her mentor Ivan Pavlov (head of Russia's Military Medicine department during her education) nods approval, murmuring: "Drink the Koolaid. Swallow it down."

[Feliks]

This is a fun discussion with obviously well-read individuals. I only wish that it be a little less tense.

I'd rather hear how people came to their opinions; than labeling them 'wrong' or 'right'.

I admit that, I am just as bad as anyone with my own knee-jerk reactions. [JD, I apologize for my L. Ron Hubbard remark.]

But for example, I'd like to know, exactly what 'untapped human potential' did Rand ever suggest might arise, if people were allowed to go off on their own and do whatever they wish without interference? Does she ever make that clear? What does isolation of people/goods ever produce, except misers, tyrants, and plutocrats?

[Jdcomments]

Feliks wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "I have enjoyed our give and take- as I said I don't think reason and logic ever really changes another person's heartfelt opinions, but it does allow one to hone and refine his o..."

Yes I know what you mean- I am still waiting for someone to present me with facts that will cause me to question Rand's basic beliefs.

Unfortunately the arguments are usually more Shakespearean in nature, "full of sound and fury...".

[CD]

I've played this one before.

If a one volume compilation of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare isn't 'allowed', then I'd at first consider, just for pure entertainment, All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren. Considering that I effectively finished memorizing it decades ago, that wouldn't be the best choice.

In variations of this exercise, where an island refuge or banishment is central, then a non-fiction reference about how to get off the island might be the selection. In that circumstance Chapman Piloting, Seamanship and Small Boat Handling would be near the top of the list for getting off the 'rock'. Plus I've always enjoyed spending hours with the tome. A love, or at least a serious enjoyment, of sailing might be a prerequisite.

So. The final choice? Eternal or final refuge or exile? Then as I am a product of Western thought, schooling, and reference I believe I'd take for my 'one' selection The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

It could contain a heretofore for me undiscovered Eureka! moment regarding my then current situation. Besides, I'll seemingly have time to get all those Roman names, emperors, and geographic point straight. Plus there are parts of the work that are just downright entertaining.

[Feliks]

Jdcomments wrote: "Yes I know what you mean- I am still waiting for someone to present me with facts that will cause me to question Rand's basic beliefs..."

Surprised to hear you claim this. Even a casual browse of the internet (a hand-me down tool, admittedly) turns up reams of competent debunking of Rand. Armies of analysts array themselves against her; and not just with 'their opinion' or 'their values against hers'..its been fairly-well proven that the way she strung her conclusions together...the reference material she used as 'ground-below-her-feet', was shaky. She was just not a good philosopher, before even getting to the meat of her ideas. She didn't know her history. That's the consensus I've seen on her. There's then, a whole other competent set of refutations for her theories themselves, which rests on top of that.

I'm not going to go dig up a long list of weblinks; because I've already done so once before (with a buddy of mine) and I'm frankly too bored by Rand to go through it all again with someone new. [That same crony refuses to assist injured or ill people on the street even when they fall down right in front of him, (which is how the matter arose between us)]. He lives by Rand's tenets, nuf said.

[Feliks]

Jdcomments wrote: "The point is that for most of history we have lived under governments justified by Hobbes rationale- authoritarian and repressive because that is what we needed to control our brutish and selfish natures..."

But that does not actually describe the governments men have lived under for 'most of history'.

I'd say that kind of thing is what some governments once might have attempted to promulgate--as a thin veneer--to disguise the character of their actual rule. Whitewash and soft-soap.

Uglier, more brutish, and nastier--by far--is the story of how rulers and governments typically come to power. Via means such as arms, nuptial unions, claims of divine right, via land grabbing, via privilege, via the support of privileged classes. Don't you agree?

[Kailas]

i would rather choose a book that i have'nt read but still very famous

[[deleted user]]

Why do you guys insist on ruining a perfectly innocent thread with your sniping political philosophy commentary?

Please take it elsewhere and let other people enjoy the thread about books without having to endure it.

[[deleted user]]

Melly wrote: "Why do you guys insist on ruining a perfectly innocent thread with your sniping political philosophy commentary?

Please take it elsewhere and let other people enjoy the thread about books without ..."

Exactly.

[Monty J]

Melly wrote: "Why do you guys insist on ruining a perfectly innocent thread with your sniping political philosophy commentary?

Please take it elsewhere and let other people enjoy the thread about books without ..."


This kind of thinking is precisely what allowed Hitler to come to power.

Grow up and face that, one way or another all books are political. They throb, ooze and drip with meaning and messages.

We can be passive sponges and absorb whatever's thrown our way or we can be active alert readers and stand up on our hind legs and use our god-given wits.

Ayn Rand, dead or alive, is a mortal threat to the democratic principles that built America.

[Jdcomments]

Feliks wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "Yes I know what you mean- I am still waiting for someone to present me with facts that will cause me to question Rand's basic beliefs..."

Surprised to hear you claim this. Even..."

Well all I can say is one person's "fact" can be another's supposition or opinion. I guess even "factual" is not as clear cut as some assume.

As I said, for me most of the arguments against Rand come down to Progressive dogma assumed to be axiomatic and therefore factual.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

And I think we should, as some have suggested, return to the topic of this thread. It was not meant to be political and we have strayed too far.

[Monty J]

Jdcomments wrote: "Progressive dogma"


Ask yourself one question: What motivates progressive thinking, greed or altruism? Randists are the aggressors, seeking to throw out America's basic values and profit from a new world order. Progressives are the resistance.

There is no "progressive dogma"; only common sense and the Christian democratic principles at America's foundation.

The Randist/John Birch platform now imbeded in the GOP exploits and destroys the middle class, seeking a fascist new world order where the wealthiest 1% control how we live.

[Jdcomments]

Monty J wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "Progressive dogma"


Ask yourself one question: What motivates progressive thinking, greed or altruism? Randists are the aggressors, seeking to throw out America's basic values a..."

Sorry but I am going to respect the wishes of the others here and refrain from engaging in political discussion. If it makes you feel better about it, think of it as bowing to the common good.

[Holly]

CD wrote: "I've played this one before.

If a one volume compilation of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare isn't 'allowed', then I'd at first consider, just for pure entertainment, All the King's Men b..."

CD I like where you are going with this. Knowing more about the island and the situation would be helpful. After all, I might like life on this island. Perhaps I am surrounded by my loved ones and the island teems with life; there is food in abundance and our small population can sustain itself. There would be no government, no taxes, no political dogma........life would be perfect. In that case a good comprehensive volume of agriculture, animal husbandry, food preservation, homeopathic medicine, textile production, simple construction and carpentry would be handy. We could then create our own literature and poetry.

[Suzanne]

Brad wrote: "The question seeks a completely subjective answer, so there is no wrong answer. Yet, some of the fun is disagreeing. So I want to enjoy disagreeing with those who would choose an Ayn Rand book as t..."

Good question! I hope someone does answer your request.

[Suzanne]

Melly wrote: "Why do you guys insist on ruining a perfectly innocent thread with your sniping political philosophy commentary?

Please take it elsewhere and let other people enjoy the thread about books without ..."

I agree with this comment. In the beginning, I did enjoy the political debate. But now it's getting tiring.

[Job419]

JD, I've enjoyed your defense of Rand in this thread. Atlas Shrugged was the first book that I thought of, and for much the same reasons. It's an inspiring tale about the benefits of hard work and persistence. Just the motivation needed in such a suituation.

[Celeste]

Probably something like .

[Jdcomments]

Job419 wrote: "JD, I've enjoyed your defense of Rand in this thread. Atlas Shrugged was the first book that I thought of, and for much the same reasons. It's an inspiring tale about the benefits of hard work an..."

Thanks Job- defending the individual is too often a lonely job! Progressives fall back on their pseudo-moralistic bromides and think they have the high ground without really saying anything substantive.

I appreciate your comment.

[Ingrid]

Steven wrote: "In the beginning of the TV show falling skies, the characters have to retreat. One of them is a history professor. He sees a pile of books and can only choose to take one and he does not know if he..."

I would choose A Tale of Two Cities because it is about a period in history that could still happen again. It shows how people behave at their worst.

[Will]

so back to awesome books, for my money there is not a better application of prose than Franny and Zooey by Salinger. I re-read this book every other year or so and have been doing it since I was 20. If I could only bring one, that would be it.