Has Anyone Else Read “Atlas Shrugged?”

In Rand's, and many others (such as Libertarians) there really isn't a difference. In both cases, you are forced via threat of violence to sacrifice the fruits of your labor for some others objective.

 

And I'm definitely sympathetic toward that POV. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way, even in freer societies. Family and peers often provide pressure on the individual independent of any government. There is part of me that always dislikes when a successful individual from a minority background feels pressure to represent the group's interests. That's fine if they feel that calling. It's not so fine if they don't wish that burden on themselves.

But it's very much a balancing act. I do feel duty toward people I know and it would be morally wrong of me to say to hell with them, just because I felt like it.

 

Understood, but I think Rand and libertarians in general go too far toward the individual side of things, sacrificing the communal aspect of human existence in the process. I very much doubt that tribal groups were individualistic to that extreme in our evolutionary history.

 

No, no.

There dynamic in the Readon Family was illustration of this point. Readon's family felt that Hank Owed them the support that he gave them, and preasured him in many ways to feel this way. Hank resisted the preasure in it's entirety- why? Becasue his morales dictated it. However, he still supported that den of vipers he called family, and why was that? Not becasue of the pressure they or that society asserted- it was becasue of his own, practical believed independent of his family's or society's belief that he should do so.

 

Why do you think that? Do you not believe in freedom of association? Libertains very much believe in the communal aspect of human existence- it is the foundation for protection from external threat. but they also believe that a person should be part of the community voluntarily, and if so desires should be free to leave it as well. Taxes are in no way shape or form voluntary.

EDIT:

With that said Marchesk, I bid you good evening. This was a refreshing conversation and one rarely seen at these forums. I appreciated your input.

Good night.

 

Again, too individualistic. What makes my reasoned belief superior to others? It's a balancing act. Sometimes, it's best to resist pressure from others. And sometimes, the pressure from others is right and proper. We are social animals.

 

I believe in freedom in most things, up to a point. It's not an absolute value, if there is such a thing. There are other values to consider.

That's it? Really? Humans live in communities only as protection from external threats and not for all the other benefits we derive? Not because a very important part of our existence derives meaning from relationships with others?

Sure, in general.

Again, it's a balance between freedom of the individual on the one hand versus the services provided to everyone from taxation. If you think that individual freedom trumps the services being provided and you'd rather live in a society where those services are either missing or provided by the private sector, then I see your point. Not everyone agrees with it. Values differ.

 

Chambers' main problem so far as I've read of his review is that Rand's fictional setting and conditions look more fictional that factual to him from the vantage point of 1957. But what would he say NOW that the fictional backdrop for the story has come to life to a great extent in America circa 2013?

www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback

 

Says the founders of this country in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Of course not. The crazy old bat was fine with treating other people like objects to satisfy one's own lusts. The fossil record speaks against that egoistical little harpy.

 

Of course, if that trite aphorism were actually the summation of her thousands of pages of turgid diatribe, it would explain why the vast majority of intelligent folks find her pulp fiction so painfully tedious.

Nor should the irony inherent in your blessedly sparse appraisal escape anyone not beset by her defiant humorlessness: "Rather than working hard, spend many of your idle hours in fictional escapism, and lose yourself in a world of make believe."

The inherent decency of the American community insures that Ms Rosenbaum's grim confections will remain safely consigned to the realm of fantasy.
Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that - as long as the distinction from reality is understood by its consumers.

Personally, I would opt for Arthur C. Clark.

 

And their word is final? What of the thousands of congressmen, judges and presidents who came after? Do they have nothing to say as to what sort of government America is to have? Does what the US founders have to say in one document constitute absolute truth for all governments in all times?

 

How can the facts of the novel be too individualistic, unless I misunderstand what you are attempting to say?

- - - Updated - - -

How can the facts of the novel be too individualistic, unless I misunderstand what you are attempting to say?

 

I don't disagree that this is the BELIEF, it just ain't the practice. The capitalism in practice is to gobble up as much capital as possible and leave nothing on the table. "All are entitled to own capital" has never applied in practical capitalism. We need another word for western capitalism.

 

Of course there is a logical, reasoned objective absolute value: that value is that my freedoms cease to exist the moment my actions directly infringe upon the rights of another. This is the barrier that taxation breaks, and this is why a volunteer, individual contractual community works.

Not meaning to sound disrespectful Marchesk as I stated I have enjoyed this conversation so please do not take it that way, but I do not think that cave dwellers banded in communities to petition government to get a Starbucks into their area. The first communities were actually families, which is legitimate as if one brings another life into this world the have an obligation to sustain that life until they are able to sustain themselves. It wasn't until later when families banded together to form tribes, to protect each persons natural rights from external threat (neighboring families and tribes) that may cross that moral absolute value aforementioned.

No- the barrier is very clear, at least IMHO. it is shared by Libertarians, Conservatives, Objectivist and a few other philosophical branches alike.even if the differ in reconciling the details. Progressives (and their various offshoot such as Egalatarains and Marxists) seem to be the only folks that object to this. it seems that line is very, very clear in my estimation.

 

You are so full-of-it your avatar is brown!

 

Remove your pretentiousness and try again. It's a wonder you can even type with that stick up your ass.

 

Is that a question? If it is, are you telling me that you did not read the book for yourself and are basically saying that you surmised your opinion based on what biographers and reviewers have said?

 

Just because your smarting from the thrashing I gave you does not entitle you to indulge in such rudeness, but we'll overlook it this time. Try to approximate civility in the future.

Why do you obsess over Americans' race and ethnicity, by the way?

 

WHAT RAND'S BIOGRAPHERS SAY ABOUT ATLAS SHRUGGED:

Contradicts Christian morality --Burns, pg. 161
A staggeringly immoral book --Weiss, pg. 249
A repudiation of Christianity.' --Weiss, pg. 174
Written to serve as pro-business propaganda . --Walker, pg. 4
Rand may have plagiarized from Ernest Bramah's book THE SECRET OF THE LEAGUE. --Walker, pg. 314
Basic idea of the plot of Atlas Shrugged was familiar to 1920s business theorists. --Walker, pg. 300
Reviewed in NYT by Granville Hicks who said 'this book is written out of hate' . --Branden, pg. 200
Attacks on it significantly outnumber the raves --Branden, pg. 202
Totalitarian U.S. in Atlas Shrugged bears no resemblance to the corporate-dominated, weakly regulated, right-leaning America of today.' --Weiss, pg. 175

SOURCES:
Branden “MY YEARS WITH AYN RAND” by NATHANIEL BRANDEN
Burns “GODDESS OF THE MARKET, AYN RAND AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT” by JENNIFER BURNS
Heller “AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE” by ANNE C. HELLER
Walker ”AYN RAND CULT” by JEFF WALKER
Weiss “AYN RAND NATION” by GARY WEISS

 

WHAT RAND'S BIOGRAPHERS SAY ABOUT AYN RAND AS A THINKER:

Flaws in her assumptions and illogic in her vision --Weiss, pg. 265
Made a practice of ignoring the obvious and misrepresenting reality. --Weiss, pg. 205
Reality was never her strong point. --Weiss, pg. 141
Nearly all literary critics called her a bad writer . --Burns, pg. 2
Many of her ideas are taken directly from 1920s business theory . --Walker, pg. 4
Lied about finishing college with highest honors --Heller, pg. 47

Wasn't a great scrabble player; her vocabulary in her novels is repetitive. --Walker, pg. 80
Didn't read much. Was a painfully slow reader. --Walker, pg. 80
Easy to imagine Rand not scoring particular y high on an IQ test. --Walker, pg. 80
Her thinking was narrow-minded and slipshod. --Walker, pg. 81

Was no great originator of ideas. --Walker, pg. 225
Egregiously poor scholarship. --Walker, pg. 227
Knew nothing of medical science. --Walker, pg. 264
Knew almost nothing about psychology. --Branden, pg. 97
Philosophers are mostly appalled by her sloppiness and ignorance. --Walker, pg. 226

Practical knowledge of economics was lacking, then found Alan Greenspan. --Weiss, pg. 6
Willing to wipe out reality. --Weiss, pg. 46
Dr. Albert Ellis complained about her anti-empiricism - translated into plain English: She didn't know what she was talking about. --Weiss, pg. 73
Edith Efron said there was no way to communicate how crazy Ayn Rand was. --Walker, pg. 265

SOURCES:
Branden “MY YEARS WITH AYN RAND” by NATHANIEL BRANDEN
Burns “GODDESS OF THE MARKET, AYN RAND AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT” by JENNIFER BURNS
Heller “AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE” by ANNE C. HELLER
Walker ”AYN RAND CULT” by JEFF WALKER
Weiss “AYN RAND NATION” by GARY WEISS

 

Have you realized your own bias on this topic yet, Jeff? It's pretty clear to everyone else. And I can't help but notice you never got back to me on the whole liberalism/Church of Satan thing.

 

WHAT RAND'S BIOGRAPHERS SAY ABOUT HER FOLLOWERS:

None of her followers dared to think for themselves. --Walker, pg. 23
Their understanding of her work was often superficial, off-center, and frivolous . --Branden, pg. 209
Complained that not one first-class brain had stood-up in public to defend Atlas Shrugged. --Branden, pg. 211
Had contempt for her followers, thinking they would believe anything she tells them. --Branden, pg. 358
Perennial issue for Rand followers: the need to finesse aspects of her teachings that make no sense --Weiss, pg. 81

Had a long record of winning over the ideologically adrift. --Weiss, pg. 145
Randian politicians like Paul Ryan have a 'soak-the-poor' agenda. --Weiss, pg. 182
In 2010 Glenn Beck devoted a whole program to Atlas Shrugged. --Weiss, pg. 32
In the manner of all cults, Objectivism attracted into its midst, an isolated, homely man, Alan Greenspan --Weiss, pg. 211

SOURCES:
Branden “MY YEARS WITH AYN RAND” by NATHANIEL BRANDEN
Burns “GODDESS OF THE MARKET, AYN RAND AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT” by JENNIFER BURNS
Heller “AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE” by ANNE C. HELLER
Walker ”AYN RAND CULT” by JEFF WALKER
Weiss “AYN RAND NATION” by GARY WEISS

 

Is this is the best defense for yor arguments that you can muster? Play ground insults are for children, and really only go so far as to insult a child. I am not a child, so you will need to redirect that if you wish it to be effective.

 

Started and got about 250 pages in and then gave up.
I thought at the time she was a lousy writer, with almost no rythmn to her prose coupled with a very prosaic vocabulary.
Thought character development was cartoonish.
As to the bits of "philosophy" I encountered, can't say I was remotely close to being on the "same page".

I have encountered a few Randians in my wanderings and I was struck by one commonality - they were all ********s.

However, I didn't finish the book, so maybe there was something in the last 900 pages or so that might have moved me, but I doubt it.

OT
Unifier - the 1 stabbing every 40 minutes in the UK compares rather favourably to the 11 shootings per hour in the US. might want to reconsider your sig.