Don't read "Atlas Shrugged"!

because you can get the same message with significantly less effort here:

Mike Wallace interview of Ayn Rand, 1959, part 1 of 3

Mike Wallace interview of Ayn Rand, 1959, part 2 of 3

Mike Wallace interview of Ayn Rand, 1959, part 3 of 3

there's also a 5-part Phil Donohue interview where she talks about how berkeleyed up it is that we spend millions on attempting to educate "retards" (her word, of which i approve), when we don't spend nearly that much on the gifteds, from whose minds the great inventions and great leadership will come.

agree or disagree with her philosophy, but it is undeniable that she knew her E36 M3.

too late, im on page 216

Its generally considered required reading for Libertarians, but I've never read it. I've heard its a bit thick and at times just beats you over the head with the point until you want to throw the book and scream "I BERKELEYING GET IT."

Wowak wrote: Its generally considered required reading for Libertarians, but I've never read it. I've heard its a bit thick and at times just beats you over the head with the point until you want to throw the book and scream "I BERKELEYING GET IT."

As I understand it, that's the whole point... if you think its beating you to death with libertarian ideals, then you're not a libertarian.

Libertarians supposedly read it cover to cover multiple times and don't tire of it, but it was partly written so that you could "weed out" the libs. If you give it to your friend and they say, "it was kinda preachy and repetetive," then they ain't no lib.

I have the book, and have tried reading it several times. I think, having seen parts of the movie "Fountainhead" I expected another novel instead of the long diatribe/philisophical rambling(?). If I remember correctly, someone has tried/is trying to make a movie based (somewhat?) on this book. I may just wait for the movie...for free, on TV.

Rand was not a libertarian. She hated Libertarians, feeling that they had essentially stolen her political and economic ideas, without their ethical core:

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

I am a Libertarian. I am also a theist, which would piss her off.

I think her philosophy of "Objectivism" (her word) is nothing more than re-packaged intellectual atheism.

I also think Libertarianism is superior to her philosophy, as it allows for the co-existence of theists and atheists.

Her ethical position that the selfish human condition is the ultimate goal is in itself a violation of her non-aggression principle in that it ultimately sanctifies and leads to the selfish individual aggressively forcing their perspective on unwilling people who want (and choose) to be self-sacrificing, because it sees itself as superior, it's core fallacy.

I think she's pretty weird ethically.

I read the book. I agree with the overall point, but that does not make it a good book. Cut it down from 1100 pages to like 500 and maybe it would be a better book as far as entertainment goes. As it is it only is a way to preach to the choir since only someone who already is convinced will put up with the whole thing.

That being said it is funny how things depicted in the book back in the day are in the news everyday now. From each according to their abilities, to each according to his needs is our new motto I think.

I read the Fountainhead. Pretty much the same. A pretty basic soap opera story stifled in 30 layers of "intellectual" window dressing. She reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard. People don't read this junk because it's a good book, they read it because someone is trying to convert them.

Why do I get a fealing that Libertarian is the most prominant political veiw point on here. I could be wrong, maybe I'm just hitting all the threads with tthat focus, who knows.

SVreX wrote: Rand was not a libertarian. She hated Libertarians, feeling that they had essentially stolen her political and economic ideas, without their ethical core: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism I am a Libertarian. I am also a theist, which would piss her off. I think her philosophy of "Objectivism" (her word) is nothing more than re-packaged intellectual atheism. I also think Libertarianism is superior to her philosophy, as it allows for the co-existence of theists and atheists. Her ethical position that the selfish human condition is the ultimate goal is in itself a violation of her non-aggression principle in that it ultimately sanctifies and leads to the selfish individual aggressively forcing their perspective on unwilling people who want (and choose) to be self-sacrificing, because it sees itself as superior, it's core fallacy. I think she's pretty weird ethically.

I think you can interpret her "selfish" ideal in a broader fashion than you just did. You are using the term selfish in relation to possessions and wealth and all of the negative connotations that go with them. You can be selfish and fit your definition of selfless by working to satisfy your emotional need to care for others at no personal financial gain.
What I see as the revelation in her books is the point that understanding what truly brings you contentment and working hard to achieve that goal is the key to a happy life.

I wished soooo hard that someone would make the hard working America speech.

Something like this:
"America was made great by the hard work of American men and women and a government that did its best to provide them the opportunity to succeed. I promise, with the help of you, the people of the greatest country in the world, to provide all the opportunities for you to succeed, and for the government to get out of the way."

Did you listen to her interviews?

I said the ultimate conclusion.

I believe the ultimate conclusion of her "selfish" idea is tyranny. Probably militarily enforced.

The problem with the theory is that it begins with the assumption that people are rational. Bad assumption.

my response to SVreX's first post would've sounded a lot like Mr. Joshua's. her philosophy in no way disallows the coexistence of the theist and the atheist. she merely points out that she disagrees in the strongest way possible with the existence of any power higher than the rational mind.

when Wallace thinks he's got Rand cornered by getting her to admit that she supports her husband financially in some circumstances, and he goes for his big point that she's living in contradiction to her stated philosophy because she's sacrificing her own good for his, her response is simply that it is not a sacrifice because it serves her selfish desire to ensure that her husband is healthy and happy and available to her.

in objectivism, there is no allowance for forcing anything upon unwilling people. quite the opposite. objectivism has at or near its core, the statement that any and all deals are entered into voluntarily by all parties, because the deal serves the needs and wants of each side of the deal.

listen to the Wallace interview, and compare today's USA to what she said to look out for 50 years ago. powerful stuff, indeed.

my response to SVreX's second post is that he's missing or misinterpreting something, to believe that tyranny would be the end result of objectivism. i'll have to come back to this thread later, as my wife is chasing me outside to rake leaves before the snow falls....

she doesn't believe that all people behave rationally, only that all people are equipped to be rational. that's why there's a need for her philosophy to exist.

Haven't watched the interviews yet. Have read the book. It's a hard read, but good. I don't agree with Rand 100%, but I think she nailed it pretty good.

i'm really going to enjoy this discussion. i hope we can all keep this discussion free from flounders!

So flesh it out a bit further, Angry.

You've described yourself as a believer before. Describe how that would flesh out in the public arena. Is that Libertarianism or Objectivism?

BTW- the link I posted earlier seems to disagree with your assertion that Rand's philosophy does not disallow for the coexistence of the atheist and the theist. I know...it's just a Wiki. But maybe you read that link a bit different than me.

SVreX wrote: I believe the ultimate conclusion of her "selfish" idea is tyranny. Probably militarily enforced.

Then you are missing the point utterly and completely. The entire second half of the Atlas Shrugged epic centers around how evil it is to coerce people by force. You're missing the point just as badly as people who claim that "capitalism" means "ripping the little guy off for everything you can".

There is a large difference between "selfish" as it is commonly used and "Rational self-interest", which is Rand's actual term. She just used "selfish" in order to polarize it a little.

SVreX wrote: The problem with the theory is that it begins with the assumption that people are rational. Bad assumption.

No, it begins with the assumption that people should be rational, which is not a bad assumption at all. In fact, as demonstrated so completely in the last 15 years or so, rationality is going to be the only thing that saves this humanity.

[edit] And if you're worried that Objectivist rationality leaves no room for art, don't. The striking heroes who withhold their ability form the socialist/fascist society include painters, sculptors, and composers. Rand's husband was an artist as well.

The only thing Rand was weird about was sex (as evidenced by some of the sexual interactions of her main characters), and even there (and in her personal life), she went with a "to each his/her own" philosophy and described it as the greatest physical joy possible when backed up with intellectual attraction and love. She was against empty casual sex as being ultimately non-satisfying and a waste of effort.

So what happens when society has an obligation to include irrational people who are seemingly incapable of rational thought? Aren't there some who are factually NOT equipped for such reason?

What about dumb people, or mentally incompetent? What about evil individuals bent on controlling others?

I think her reasoning implies a hierarchy of individual value based on intellectual prowess or capacity, which then leads to those such "advantaged" individuals using that advantage to there own personal gain at the expense of others less capable of competing in that specific arena.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: I believe the ultimate conclusion of her "selfish" idea is tyranny. Probably militarily enforced.

Then you are missing the point utterly and completely. The entire second half of the Atlas Shrugged epic centers around how evil it is to coerce people by force. You're missing the point just as badly as people who claim that "capitalism" means "ripping the little guy off for everything you can". There is a large difference between "selfish" as it is commonly used and "Rational self-interest", which is Rand's actual term. She just used "selfish" in order to polarize it a little.

Define force.

If you mean military force, perhaps I agree with you. But there are a lot of different kinds of coercement.

Evil individuals bent on controlling others should be subdued when they violate others' rights - subdued by force, if necessary. Defensive force is justified. Offensive force is not.

You're falling into the zero-sum trap of assuming that more-able people only get rich by ripping off less-able people. That's not true. Less-able people get MORE by allowing more-able people to raise the overall standard of living than they do by simply transerring the wealth by law (which equals "by force").

No one has a problem with helping others who are truly unable to help themselves. But that bar can be set pretty low - you may not get rich as a manual laborer, but you can support yourself. And if the limit of your ability is manual labor, then you get reward based on that. Wages should be based on supply and demand.

Duke wrote: Evil individuals bent on controlling others should be subdued when they violate others' rights - subdued by force, if necessary. Defensive force is justified. Offensive force is not.

Define evil. Define rights.

In the past few years we've heard defenses of a "Constitutional right to an abortion", as well as the "Constitutional right a fetus has to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Both sides claim "rights". Both sides would suggest the other is "evil".

In what manner does one protect himself DEFENSIVELY if he hasn't made the preparations that would also enable him OFFENSIVELY. For example- the "star wars" argument (we put up satellites for our our "defense", yet everyone realizes they can easily be utilized for offensive purposes as well).

Just finished it for the third time(over the years). When I lived in the Buffalo area(Amherst) I had the pleasure of meeting this grand old Lady.(capitalized on purpose) She was quite instrumental in enlightening a left wing wannabe radical to the wisdom of conservatism. Me

I think you can sum Ayn Rand up in one word - LOGICAL.

SVreX wrote:

Duke wrote: Evil individuals bent on controlling others should be subdued when they violate others' rights - subdued by force, if necessary. Defensive force is justified. Offensive force is not.

Define evil. Define rights. In the past few years we've heard defenses of a "Constitutional right to an abortion", as well as the "Constitutional right a fetus has to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Both sides claim "rights". Both sides would suggest the other is "evil". In what manner does one protect himself DEFENSIVELY if he hasn't made the preparations that would also enable him OFFENSIVELY. For example- the "star wars" argument (we put up satellites for our our "defense", yet everyone realizes they can easily be utilized for offensive purposes as well).

We all define rights and and force to suit our particular ideals. Just because pro-life and pro-choice sides define their particular "rights" one way doesn't mean I have to accept one or the other definitions as correct. I think they are both wrong.

AngryCorvair wrote:

i'm really going to enjoy this discussion. i hope we can all keep this discussion free from flounders!

sorry, I couldn't resist

neon4891 wrote: Why do I get a fealing that Libertarian is the most prominant political veiw point on here. I could be wrong, maybe I'm just hitting all the threads with tthat focus, who knows.

I noticed that a while back...I'd say that in order, they are:

Most prominent: Libertarianism

In a close second: Conservativism (the old fashioned type...Archaeo-Conservativism?)

Tied at a close third: Neo-Conservativism/Liberalism

In the interest of not floundering this thread I won't say what I think about libertarianism.