Atlas Shrugged is a stupid book

Wow, misinformation is spreading...I got semi-pissed when I saw Colbert's self-righteous shit on Atlas Shrugged.

Rand is very easy to misinterpret but yeah...

I haven't read it yet, but it looks like I'mma have to in order to set people straight. Also, read Anthem, it's short, and free pdf's are floating around the internet. Less in it, and thus less for people to skew into 'this is bad! this is bad!'

And Machiavelli is so not individualist, he's very pro-state (like, by definition).

I forget who told me to read it originally. Probably a teacher who wanted me to take away the idea that, no matter how crazy the rest of the world decides to be, you can still do the right and intelligent thing. I don't know how people pull a business model from the book, or Machiavelli for that matter. I have never read any other work of Ayn Rand. I will read Anthem if it is free.

Machiavelli believed in a republic. Just saying.
If you only read The Prince and assume that's the cornerstone of Machiavelli's beliefs, than you should dig into another book.

"Octavia and her teacher" is funny.
I always though it was weird that because of one book the author's name has become a noun and an adjective, both with negative connotations. I don't agree with that.

i've always liked machiavelli because in every picture or drawing of him he looks like the devil and got's that little smirk on his face like he knows something you don't know.

That's because he knows everything you don't know

I downloaded the audiobook for Atlas Shrugged as I was going to be spending about a month at working doing serious data entry at work, and wanted something to keep me occupied.

There were two versions: the 58 unabridged version, and the 11 hour abridged version. I got the 58 hour one, wondering how you could ever cut out 80% of a book and refer to it as anything except for cliff notes. I didn't understand how any work could get cut by that much and still be called the same book.

58 hours later, I wondered how much chaff had to be left in the 11 hour version.

A boring, boring piece of prose.
John Galt's speech is somewhat compelling, though.

Or this. Take it or leave it:

Then we have these assholes:

Good stuff, quiettime.

Anyways, Rand may be used to justify being bad...but that wasn't her point.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, was of the opinion that if its for the 'good' of the nation/state/community, it's okay for the prince to do.

Rand and Machiavelli are almost opposites in that regard.

I'm not an objectivist, but I agree with many of the principles of the philosophy. It stresses self-gratification. It is existential in the sense that it enables the individual to define morality, because outside of themselves, what does it matter what morality is? The composition of individuals define morality for themselves.

Two biggest misnomers of objectivism:
-That it sees the world in 'black and white'
-That it encourages you to be an selfish prick.

While objectivism can be used to justify being a selfish prick, that is not it's intent, such as Nietzsche likely did not intend to be interpreted as being a racist (though he set himself up for that for distinguishing race so often). Caring for others could be what gives you joy, thus, it is in your own self interest to care for others. The emphasis being placed on the fact that you want to help others rather than 'helping others is good' is what objectivism is all about. Of course statists love to paint it as selfishness for its own sake, and the rememdy for falling victim to this is to remain skeptical of anyone else's interpretations of things and delve into them for yourself.

The black and white thing...since objectivism see collectivism as always wrong (when its done for the sake of collectivism and not because individuals chose to work collectively), it gets labeled as a philosophy which only sees black and white in state power. This is true, but this 'black and white' label is strictly limited to state power. Otherwise, it is an incredibly liberating philosophy which allows the individual to define which shade of gray they wish their own life to be. Thus, oversimplification kills the idea yet again.

"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins."
-The Rand

If you see state power as always immoral, you can't even begin to make values in a valueless system, or at least a system of fiat values. First, the gun must be put down. Then the individual can begin defining values.

Cool, I think I summed up the basics without getting too long winded...

Anyways, free Anthem pdf here: http://manybooks.net/titles/randaynetext98anthm10.html

A. It's Galt. Not Gault.

B. The premise of the book is to denounce altruism. It is a vehicle for Rand to illustrate Objectivism by example.

The basis behind Atlas Shrugged is not to be humorous, which you said you had a problem with, but to open the eyes of ignorant people. It's a thesis on philosophy, not a fucking strip of Calvin and Hobbes. The idea is that people should not be forced, or persuaded, into supporting those that can't support themselves. It is a testament to Capitalism, and moreover, an illustration of inspiring characters that do not accept failure even when circumstances are against them.

I can understand that you would think that the book is boring and long winded, but you should try to look at things with an open mind, instead of writing a book off for such frivolous reasons.

I'm a little biased though, as this is my favorite book.

Well, the first post mentioned how, every so often, Rand has a character say how something is the Most Evil ____ s/he has ever seen. Which, in the ten or so pages I read of it years ago, I distinctly remember coming across. All philosophy aside, I'd say she's a pretty shitty writer.

Also, Anthem, which I did read through, was absolutely awful. It's saving grace was its brevity.

Too, from reading most of her nonfiction, I've formed the opinion that, to Rand, you are either an Objectivist or a Collectivist (dirty fucking Statist). Which is absolutely absurd, and not in the good, Camus-type way, but in the this-is-what-happens-when-your-entire-philosophy-is-based-on-your-parents-fleeing-Stalinist-Russia way. It is black-and-white. There's no concern raised about the differing agency of people in her ideal Objectivist world, no concern for the exploitation of the multitudes by those great individuals she supports, and any raising of such concerns is blasted in a truly juvenile manner.

So, she's worth reading, I'd say, but not her fiction.

I'll agree, PFives, that she is 'objectivist or bust' in real life, since she denounced the libertarian party as 'stealing from/watering down objectivism' as though they couldn't form their own deviations.

That said, I'm not surprised you hated Anthem...since it is basically an individualist ejaculation. And the writing is goofy...but overwhelmingly powerful, nonetheless (if you're a capitalist pig like me).

Also, good thing to point out so people don't get scared:

Altruism to an objectivist does not mean sharing/doing for other people. It means doing for others with no expectation of reward, simply for the sake of doing. Thus, terms like 'reciprocal altruism' are oxymorons when speaking with an objectivist. If it's voluntary, and you receive from it, it's not altruism, it's trade. I also define altruism this way for the sake of having a word that means no expectation of return. Thus, I agree altruism is bad, though I don't consider myself an Objectivist.

Looters, the lot of you.

It is very stupid book. Read The Fall by Albert Camus instead.

"There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality - the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms of bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you."

Pretty much what the slaveowners told the slaves, yes?

qft

Be a sport and cite your source. Just using quotes makes you seem weird and superior. Like a scientologist or a mason.

My apologies, it's a quote from John Galt's speech in the book.

And I'm still waiting for the mother-ship!!!

Leave the Masons out of this, Mirka, they build free burn-wards for children. Objectivists own the hospitals that parents can't afford to get their children into.

McDonalds has cancer hotels, so no, I won't stop deriding masons.

Funny how the Objectivists still have to pay for welfare checks.

See where I'm going with this?

I don't see where you are going with this. Will you explain in your own words, please?

Yes, you don't to pay taxes. Big deal.

No one wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore. In an Altruistic society, it's all too simple just to place the blame on the person above you and suckle the teat of success from afar, with none of the work invested.

Our society is built on an inherent laziness, people want rewards without the tribulations; people want the cake but they don't want to invest any time in baking, and they can't even afford the eggs. Everyone wants the luxury, but no one wants to work for it.

Obama rode a tidal wave into the White House on a platform based on only raising the taxes of people that make more than $250,000 a year. So this is how success is rewarded, your own hard work is taken and distributed to support those that did not have the same ambition that you did. Being punished for another persons failings where you have succeeded, that makes perfect sense...

Society needs to take some responsibility for themselves, and learn some work ethic as well. You can't expect to be granted something that you don't deserve, you need to work for it. You have to make success for yourself, and sometimes that involves putting in some fucking time and effort.

It should be no other way.

Ambition is 250,000 dollars a year? Is that what you're saying?

Can I get paid 250,000 a year to teach high school? That would be great!

What I'm saying is that it took very hard work to make that kind of money, and I don't see how it is fair to target the successful.

Flat tax, imo.

How do you define successful?

I was referring to people that were monetarily successful.

Not necessarily people that are successful in life, I believe that definition would end up being much more relative to the individual.

I think I got that. But you are also saying that being successful means earning $250 plus a year?

I am countering that people that earn less than that should be considered equally successful.

Are you still in school? Be it HS or UNI?

People shouldn't be taxed off of a success gauge, I don't see what difference it makes whether they make 250,000 a year or 140,000 a year. Presumably that would still be considered successful, right?

I only used the Obama tax plan as an example to get my point across...Robin Hood-esque tax plans targeting the wealthy are unfair.

I guess 'ambition' was just poor word choice.

No, I graduated high school a year and a half ago. And after a semester I could no longer afford to attend college. I joined the Army as a means to an end, paid for college.

So when I get out in roughly four years, I'll be going back to get my journalism degree.

Both ambition and success were poor choices in my opinion.

I guess I don't understand how you are in the army to protect people that make $40,000 a year. You make what less than $600 a month and face death?

Well I apologize for not being articulate enough.

It's almost $1500 a month, with almost 1k added onto that if I get stationed in Alaska like I want to be (crosses fingers. for alaska, not for the cost of living allowance.) It's modest, but without having to pay for rent, dental insurance, health insurance, utilities, food, or tuition...it's not too bad for a 19 year old.

Facing death is one way to look at it, I guess. I would be more miserable had I not made this decision and didn't use it as a stepping stone to things that I want to achieve down the road. Whats that phrase...I think that 'the juice is worth the squeeze.'

Also, you don't worry about protecting rich civilians, you worry about protecting the guy next to you.

The guy next to me is not making $140 a year and has no health insurance. He's adorable, decent, incredibly smart and very nice. Any advice for him? Besides joining the army?

Did you edit? Because this entire conversation on my part had nothing to do with protecting rich civilians.

"Goodbye," Esme said. "I hope you return from the war with all your faculties intact."

http://www.freeweb.hu/tchl/salinger/squalor.html

Air force?

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't know exactly. I got fired from my job, found out my ex-fiancee was sleeping with my friend, and I couldn't pay for college, much less my apartment anymore. I wasn't handed anything, I worked hard for what I had, and all the cards came falling down at the same time.

I guess you could say I took the 'easy' way out. I wouldn't say that, but I'm sure that some people would.

Uh...

uh, right, air force. Carry on.

Go to college.

Work at Wal-Mart, they have employee benefits...

I have no idea what the adorable guy next to you should do, and frankly I don't care what he does. I'm doing what I have to do, and I'm sure he can do the same.

And yeah you're right, the Air Force is serious business. I've heard some terrifying stories about sores gotten while on couch duty.

I don't think much of Atlas Shrugged, but I was entertained by it. The Fountainhead's a guilty pleasure of mine, though.

Mirka's suggestion that people read The Fall by Camus is very valid though. It's a much better exploration of altruism and its impossibility. And it's like a hundred pages but has a lot more to say.

i can't believe i make more than someone protecting my country in the army and i don't even have a degree.

Believe it. It's appalling.

In addition to a modified flat tax, I would suggest that active duty military pay no income tax whatsoever; they're already doing their bit. Reserve and part-time pay no income tax earned on duty. Combat veterans get a permanent cut to a lower rate. Make it worth people's while.

and i heard that unless you're retired from the army or a veteran, you have to pay for your own benefits. this is baffling to me because my friend works for this little tool shop in dallas and he doesn't have to pay for health insurance.

now, i'm not educated enough to know if free healthcare for everyone is a good idea or not but we can't even give our military free healthcare? for shame.

The cost you pay for health/dental benefits is so minimal in comparison to what it should cost. It's like 50-60 dollars a month.

http://www.mail-archive.com/libertarian@yahoogroups.com/msg14074.html

To Mirka: (From the linked essay)

To MCDrake:

Also from the essay:

Drake, if you're arguing for minimal gov't, you're arguing for minimal violence, thus the moral highground remains with Mirka who proposes a problem that you believe a violent solution would be appropriate for, if 'it worked'. Then you get into a thing over what 'works'.

If you argue against preemptive violence, always, as I encourage, you will always have the moral highground.

If you wanna have an economics and practicality debate, have fun. You'll find it'll take hours and you need to convince people of the libertarian practicality on every single issue before they become libertarians. If you put a priori morals first, then the economics and practicality can be figured out once the gun has been put down.