4 ms·

This is a satirical analysis of Atlas Shrugged, right? When I read it, my impression was that the message is 'all acts are moral if they are in your own self-i

by jressey 10y ago

This is a satirical analysis of Atlas Shrugged, right? When I read it, my impression was that the message is 'all acts are moral if they are in your own self-interest.' The 'heroes' as you call them abandoned civilization to create a utopia where the free-market is the only law. Check out Bioshock to see what might happen.

Danihan 10y ago
'all acts are moral if they are in your own self-interest.' I believe it's more, "All acts are moral when transactions are conducted fairly and consensually between the involved parties."
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Which works fine as long as there's an ultimate authority to enforce fairness (defined how...?) and consent.
arkis22 10y ago
'all acts are moral if they are in your own self-interest.' Is obviously wrong. The villains of the book think that charity takes precedence over everything, or that they are intrinsically entitled to something just because they exist. In other words, if we're both starving, it's my moral obligation to feed you first. Abandoned civilization? By the end of the book the main characters had their wealth confiscated and civilization had fallen apart. And it's not just the heroes. There's countless references to regular workers "abandoning civiliation," giving up work and roaming the countryside stealing food. I would love for you to point out a passage where Rand says that the only law should be the free market.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
She had PTSD or something similar. Her "literature" was therapy. Born in the upper-middle class in tsarist Russia, her dad a business owner. Got thrown out in the street by the muzhiks, along with the whole family. Had to wander through the country, nearly starving on occasion. Fled the place at the first opportunity. It's all in the books. The glorious, near superhuman entrepreneurs are echoes of Daddy. The welfare state is the masses who robbed her family of their wealth. She has a visceral hate of them because, well, they were the cause of her family's destitution in real life. And she is actively trying to construct an ideology which is in every way, every single detail, opposite to the ideology of the revolution that sent her life on a different course - opposite even when it makes no sense. Like someone who got raped and then is preaching how sex is bad for you. It's quite transparent.
- arkis22 10y ago
  You could belittle any author as "merely" the result of their upbringing and psychology to invalidate them. That's not productive or fair. The story that you gave and your reaction to it shows a distinct lack of empathy. If it happened to you I'd bet you'd bitch too.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    The point is - is this true or not? I strongly believe my assessment is correct. As for the "lack of empathy" - I actually intended to add a coda, as to how the life of young Alyssa Rosenbaum was pretty miserable, and how I, as someone who grew up behind the Iron Curtain and actually lived and suffered for two decades under a stalinist-like dictatorship (unlike armchair libertarians who read Atlas Shrugged at Starbucks in a comfy western city, all decked up in turtlenecks and designer jeans), I sort of understand her visceral reaction to the horrors of that kind of regime. No, not "sort of"; I truly understand - again unlike western readers. But then I said to myself - this is the accidental "thought leader" of a movement, the rise of selfishness and base instincts, that - if left unchecked - would burn down the world and put a stop to the project that has started 6000 years ago in Sumer, and still going strong, that we call civilization. So pardon me if there's another side of me that says "screw Ayn Rand and her insane mumblings".
    - arkis22 10y ago
      I strongly believe you are incorrect. And your insistence at labeling the values she espouses as being simply selfishness is a shallow understanding of her ideas. If you'd like to expand your history I'm sure I could give an example of your animosity being the result of you overcompensating for something. Does that make it true?
      - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
        ...aaand we've finally arrived at the core boilerplate "argument" with any Ayn Rand supporter. I've seen this more times than I can count. It's as inevitable as the eye of the maelstrom. If you disagree, your understanding is "shallow". Or perhaps there's something wrong with you, psychologically. In other words, you're dumb or crazy. She would approve so much of this tactic, because she's used it a lot herself. And it's ironic because Ayn Rand herself was shallow as an intellectual, and her writings really were the attempts to overcompensate of someone whose mental equilibrium was in bad shape after living through horrors. It's called projection. And the answer is no. Have a nice day.

by jressey 10y ago

Danihan 10y ago

'all acts are moral if they are in your own self-interest.' I believe it's more, "All acts are moral when transactions are conducted fairly and consensually between the involved parties."

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Which works fine as long as there's an ultimate authority to enforce fairness (defined how...?) and consent.

arkis22 10y ago

'all acts are moral if they are in your own self-interest.' Is obviously wrong. The villains of the book think that charity takes precedence over everything, or that they are intrinsically entitled to something just because they exist. In other words, if we're both starving, it's my moral obligation to feed you first. Abandoned civilization? By the end of the book the main characters had their wealth confiscated and civilization had fallen apart. And it's not just the heroes. There's countless references to regular workers "abandoning civiliation," giving up work and roaming the countryside stealing food. I would love for you to point out a passage where Rand says that the only law should be the free market.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

She had PTSD or something similar. Her "literature" was therapy. Born in the upper-middle class in tsarist Russia, her dad a business owner. Got thrown out in the street by the muzhiks, along with the whole family. Had to wander through the country, nearly starving on occasion. Fled the place at the first opportunity. It's all in the books. The glorious, near superhuman entrepreneurs are echoes of Daddy. The welfare state is the masses who robbed her family of their wealth. She has a visceral hate of them because, well, they were the cause of her family's destitution in real life. And she is actively trying to construct an ideology which is in every way, every single detail, opposite to the ideology of the revolution that sent her life on a different course - opposite even when it makes no sense. Like someone who got raped and then is preaching how sex is bad for you. It's quite transparent.

arkis22 10y ago
You could belittle any author as "merely" the result of their upbringing and psychology to invalidate them. That's not productive or fair. The story that you gave and your reaction to it shows a distinct lack of empathy. If it happened to you I'd bet you'd bitch too.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  The point is - is this true or not? I strongly believe my assessment is correct. As for the "lack of empathy" - I actually intended to add a coda, as to how the life of young Alyssa Rosenbaum was pretty miserable, and how I, as someone who grew up behind the Iron Curtain and actually lived and suffered for two decades under a stalinist-like dictatorship (unlike armchair libertarians who read Atlas Shrugged at Starbucks in a comfy western city, all decked up in turtlenecks and designer jeans), I sort of understand her visceral reaction to the horrors of that kind of regime. No, not "sort of"; I truly understand - again unlike western readers. But then I said to myself - this is the accidental "thought leader" of a movement, the rise of selfishness and base instincts, that - if left unchecked - would burn down the world and put a stop to the project that has started 6000 years ago in Sumer, and still going strong, that we call civilization. So pardon me if there's another side of me that says "screw Ayn Rand and her insane mumblings".
  - arkis22 10y ago
    I strongly believe you are incorrect. And your insistence at labeling the values she espouses as being simply selfishness is a shallow understanding of her ideas. If you'd like to expand your history I'm sure I could give an example of your animosity being the result of you overcompensating for something. Does that make it true?
    - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
      ...aaand we've finally arrived at the core boilerplate "argument" with any Ayn Rand supporter. I've seen this more times than I can count. It's as inevitable as the eye of the maelstrom. If you disagree, your understanding is "shallow". Or perhaps there's something wrong with you, psychologically. In other words, you're dumb or crazy. She would approve so much of this tactic, because she's used it a lot herself. And it's ironic because Ayn Rand herself was shallow as an intellectual, and her writings really were the attempts to overcompensate of someone whose mental equilibrium was in bad shape after living through horrors. It's called projection. And the answer is no. Have a nice day.