4 ms·
You're missing the point. She glorified the "productive people", the people who, if absent, would lead to the collapse of society. John Galt, Rand's superhero,
by Rod 16y ago
You're missing the point. She glorified the "productive people", the people who, if absent, would lead to the collapse of society. John Galt, Rand's superhero, was nothing like Rand. Let's face it, Rand never did Science, nor Technology, she invented nothing, she did not start businesses that generated jobs. All she did was write and have tea and cookies with her fellow Manhattan socialites who believed that the world owned them something. Rand wrote book for teenagers and emotionally retarded individuals who believed they were special and unique snowflakes and that the evil world failed to recognize their extraordinary talents.
It could be worse. At least Rand valued hard work and self-reliance. It would have been worse if her books glorified being a social parasite.
- scott_s 16y agoYou're playing a game of semantics; redefining "work" to mean "work that you think is valuable." That's not helpful. If you want to say "I don't value her work for reasons x, y and z," just say that.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- xenophanes 16y ago> Actually, I am using Rand's definition of work. Rand's biggest hero, John Galt, was a thinker not an industrialist.