3 ms·

I've read it. I was charmed by its philosophy...for a while. Then I had a good friend talk me down from the cloud. The main theme of Atlas Shrugged, as I saw i

I've read it. I was charmed by its philosophy...for a while. Then I had a good friend talk me down from the cloud. The main theme of Atlas Shrugged, as I saw it, is that really smart/creative people are often used and abused by people in power, and that if all the smart/creative people left, that society would collapse. Now, any attractive philosophy needs to have at least a grain of truth to be popular--and I fully agree that people are abused and manipulated by those in power. I identify as a smart and creative person, so of COURSE I want to be the one calling the shots, and not some idiot! Where Rand falls short is in idolizing capitalism and taking an idealistic view of human nature. She also misses that if ANY large enough group walked out on society, it would grind to a halt--and that includes truck drivers, janitors, or whoever. It's called a strike. The reality is that people are born into situations that make it possible to be smart/creative. The studies on this are conclusive--just giving a poor kid an extra year of preschool raises their chance of graduating high school, and their salary 35 years later. It's a fact that you were born to parents who taught you well as a young child that makes you smart enough to be arguing the merits of Ayn Rand. This all destroys her core axiom that people who are the smart and creative builders of society are that way because of some inner moral purity, and therefore they deserve to be treated fairly--and the rest of society be damned, because they aren't as hard working/moral/whatever. The truth is that smart people are equally likely to be selfish (and lazy!) jerks; "enlightened self interest" is a fantasy that doesn't exist outside of possibly a few individuals and Rand novels. Looking at the other side, people without money or advanced skills frequently will vote against their own economic interests in order to vote their beliefs. You can't base a real system of government on wishful thinking--ask the USSR how that worked out. Ironic that Rand came from that background only to espouse her own philosophy equally based on wishful thinking...but I digress. The whole reality, in my opinion, is much bigger than just smart people being exploited: EVERYONE should be treated fairly, and no one should be exploited. Rand entices smart people by telling them that they're special, and that THEY are the ones should should be running the world. And to some degree I can buy into this. ;) But not to the exclusion of helping others--and the sad truth of the matter is that charities can NOT do enough simply from voluntary contributions to support those who weren't as lucky in selecting their genes, and that means that taxes and government social programs are a necessary part of the moral behavior of society. As are government rules that protect workers, or that protect the food supply, or that protect the environment, and the other things that libertarianism/objectivism would have us do away with. She argues for pure, unregulated capitalism, and that's just completely insane. There's too much corporate influence in government as it is, and not enough regulation. Unless you think oil spills are fun, and don't mind the environmental damage that big Ag causes, and think that miners SHOULD be risking their lives for low pay, and on and on... The reality is that the market spectacularly fails under some circumstances, and that government is necessary to regulate it. There. I've said it. Let the libertarian downvoting commence...

grandalf 16y ago
I don't know where you got the idea that intelligence is important to Rand. I think she's talking about passion. The sort of passion that drives inventors to stay up nights working on projects, etc.
- dk 16y ago
  Rand certainly regarded intelligence as important but I don't think she regarded it as volitional. Of course one can volitionally act unintelligently, but for instance Eddie Willers in Atlas did not have Dagny's intelligence and efficacy, but he was a moral character and would have to be listed among the novel's heroes. Mike the construction worker in The Fountainhead would be a similar example.
lzw 16y ago
Your description of the book is what you could find in any summary, and combined with what else you've said doesn't indicate that you have read the book. Maybe you read it as a novel and didn't think about the arguments or glen the philosophy from it, or maybe your lying. But you haven't correctly stated the premise or conclusions or provided arguments that rebut he argumentsbitbhas made. You just assert that socialism is necessary because you assert the market fails. You never give any reason. You conflate government actions with capitalism and then rail against corporate influence. If you read it it was long enough ago or you weren't aging close enough attention. What you've given us is the knee jerk ideological reaction of every liberal who hears that Rand doesn't hate capitalism. You haven't actually addressed the book, or what Rand said. For instance, she didn't blame those exploiting the smart people, as you put it, she blamed the smart people for believing they should themselves be exploited.
- SomeCallMeTim 16y ago
  I had a girlfriend at the time who was an avid objectivist, and I read the book looking specifically at the philosophy. I replied to you in good faith because you claimed that you'd never seen a decent argument by someone who'd read the book. I not only read the book but listened to hours of detailed explanation of objectivist philosophy -- if I've conflated anything, it's the general beliefs of objectivism with the specific plot and details of Atlas Shrugged. Also, to say that Rand didn't "blame" those doing the exploiting is simply wrong: She portrayed those doing the exploiting as evil and without morals (which to her is synonymous). Maybe you can't "blame" a person who is acting out of their nature, but that's a semantic argument. She also said that the smart/hard working people had a choice, and so equally blamed them for going along with being exploited--and that much of her message I agree with, in that I quit my job to start my own company. But if you're going to accuse me of lying straight out, then there's no real point in arguing. Your responses also didn't address what I actually said--I gave specific examples as to how the market has failed, and blamed the LACK of action of the government on corporate influence. WHY the market fails is far more complicated than can be discussed in a single blog comment--THAT it fails should be sufficient to make my point. The disasters I listed are all caused by too much reliance on libertarian/objectivist principles of absolute laissez faire capitalism. A government that properly protected its citizens and the environment wouldn't have allowed any of the above to happen. If the reason for that is that you can't see ANY argument as decent, regardless of merit, then there's no point in engaging. I had an argument with someone a while back that felt like this--I'd give a dozen rational statements that supported my side, and the response was always an attack on a tangential point in one or two. I'd try to dig deeper, and again the argument would derail in a bizarre manner. I think that in situations like this it means that the person responding that way SO MUCH wants to believe his or her side that any challenge is met with an overkill response of rationalization. I think this is where the term "Fractally Wrong" comes from. From time to time I feel myself reacting that way to a question. I treat it as a warning: There's something that I WANT to believe, that I take as a matter of faith, that I don't really think is true, so my rationalization engine gets kicked into overdrive, and I get angry and the person challenging my assumptions to boot. I am NOT accusing you of this to attempt to hurt your position. Your responses were not nearly of the magnitude of that past debate opponent. But if things that I -- or anyone else -- is saying cause an extreme emotional response (say, to accuse them of lying rather than just addressing their points), and you feel the need to write out pages of reasons why the other person is wrong without actually dealing with their points directly, then I urge you to perform a bit of self evaluation. See if you might not actually believe your position as rationally as you think you do. Because when you reply in anger, it makes me feel that I'm attacking a matter of faith rather than a carefully considered position. And when I reply in anger, it says, to me, the same thing about me. I may be a bit obsessive about writing long answers, but I'm not feeling angry right now. /tangent

grandalf 16y ago

I don't know where you got the idea that intelligence is important to Rand. I think she's talking about passion. The sort of passion that drives inventors to stay up nights working on projects, etc.

dk 16y ago
Rand certainly regarded intelligence as important but I don't think she regarded it as volitional. Of course one can volitionally act unintelligently, but for instance Eddie Willers in Atlas did not have Dagny's intelligence and efficacy, but he was a moral character and would have to be listed among the novel's heroes. Mike the construction worker in The Fountainhead would be a similar example.

lzw 16y ago

Your description of the book is what you could find in any summary, and combined with what else you've said doesn't indicate that you have read the book. Maybe you read it as a novel and didn't think about the arguments or glen the philosophy from it, or maybe your lying. But you haven't correctly stated the premise or conclusions or provided arguments that rebut he argumentsbitbhas made. You just assert that socialism is necessary because you assert the market fails. You never give any reason. You conflate government actions with capitalism and then rail against corporate influence. If you read it it was long enough ago or you weren't aging close enough attention. What you've given us is the knee jerk ideological reaction of every liberal who hears that Rand doesn't hate capitalism. You haven't actually addressed the book, or what Rand said. For instance, she didn't blame those exploiting the smart people, as you put it, she blamed the smart people for believing they should themselves be exploited.

SomeCallMeTim 16y ago
I had a girlfriend at the time who was an avid objectivist, and I read the book looking specifically at the philosophy. I replied to you in good faith because you claimed that you'd never seen a decent argument by someone who'd read the book. I not only read the book but listened to hours of detailed explanation of objectivist philosophy -- if I've conflated anything, it's the general beliefs of objectivism with the specific plot and details of Atlas Shrugged. Also, to say that Rand didn't "blame" those doing the exploiting is simply wrong: She portrayed those doing the exploiting as evil and without morals (which to her is synonymous). Maybe you can't "blame" a person who is acting out of their nature, but that's a semantic argument. She also said that the smart/hard working people had a choice, and so equally blamed them for going along with being exploited--and that much of her message I agree with, in that I quit my job to start my own company. But if you're going to accuse me of lying straight out, then there's no real point in arguing. Your responses also didn't address what I actually said--I gave specific examples as to how the market has failed, and blamed the LACK of action of the government on corporate influence. WHY the market fails is far more complicated than can be discussed in a single blog comment--THAT it fails should be sufficient to make my point. The disasters I listed are all caused by too much reliance on libertarian/objectivist principles of absolute laissez faire capitalism. A government that properly protected its citizens and the environment wouldn't have allowed any of the above to happen. If the reason for that is that you can't see ANY argument as decent, regardless of merit, then there's no point in engaging. I had an argument with someone a while back that felt like this--I'd give a dozen rational statements that supported my side, and the response was always an attack on a tangential point in one or two. I'd try to dig deeper, and again the argument would derail in a bizarre manner. I think that in situations like this it means that the person responding that way SO MUCH wants to believe his or her side that any challenge is met with an overkill response of rationalization. I think this is where the term "Fractally Wrong" comes from. From time to time I feel myself reacting that way to a question. I treat it as a warning: There's something that I WANT to believe, that I take as a matter of faith, that I don't really think is true, so my rationalization engine gets kicked into overdrive, and I get angry and the person challenging my assumptions to boot. I am NOT accusing you of this to attempt to hurt your position. Your responses were not nearly of the magnitude of that past debate opponent. But if things that I -- or anyone else -- is saying cause an extreme emotional response (say, to accuse them of lying rather than just addressing their points), and you feel the need to write out pages of reasons why the other person is wrong without actually dealing with their points directly, then I urge you to perform a bit of self evaluation. See if you might not actually believe your position as rationally as you think you do. Because when you reply in anger, it makes me feel that I'm attacking a matter of faith rather than a carefully considered position. And when I reply in anger, it says, to me, the same thing about me. I may be a bit obsessive about writing long answers, but I'm not feeling angry right now. /tangent