5 ms·

Just curious: Why do you say that Ayn Rand may not be popular around here?

by a-priori 18y ago

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
ivey 18y ago
That tends to be a safe assumption in most places.
maw 18y ago
Because bad parodies are, well, bad, and Atlas Shrugged reads like nothing so much as a parody of classical liberalism written by a recent convert to communism without a shred of literary talent.
- gills 18y ago
  Wow, that's pretty harsh. I'm currently reading that book for the first time, and I don't agree with you. Quite the opposite, actually. Despite the repeated and annoying misuse of the past-tense form of 'light', and the obviously strained attempts to inject philosphy into dialogue, there are some good points in the book. I would be interested in reading any elaboration you may personally wish to undertake.
  - jfarmer 18y ago
    Wait until the book turns into an action movie in the last few hundred pages.
  - maw 18y ago
    There are good ideas in Atlas Shrugged, but they're presented so badly as to resemble a strawman argument. My copy is 1069 pages long, but Rand says nearly everything she has to say within the first hundred. Although, to be fair, I'd read about her and was already a small-l libertarian, so there wasn't a whole lot new. But before I forget: yep, I'm a small-l libertarian. Rand and her followers and I wouldn't get along well, for the most laughable -- if they weren't pathetic -- of reasons. Peruse some of the results at http://www.google.com/search?q=objectivism+and+libertarianism http://www.google.com/search?q=objectivism+and+libertarianis.... Pretty sad, really. Rand had a number of other beliefs about topics such as the role of women in a heterosexual relationship and homosexuality that many people living in a modern society in the 21st century will have a hard time swallowing. That her ideas were unpopular doesn't make them wrong, of course. But I think they often were. Back to Rand's writing in Atlas Shrugged, I agree that the dialogue is bad, often simply not credible. But suspension of disbelief only works when some aspects of the story -- be they characters, settings, events, or something else -- remain recognizable from reality. But very little in Atlas is, certainly nothing key to the story. We the Living is a much better book than Atlas Shrugged, for what it's worth.
- netcan 18y ago
  Reads better then The Republic
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
Ayn Rand makes some salient points, but they were hardly original, even in her time. Rand took classic liberalism to its extreme, not realizing that all political systems are compromises between liberty and social power (or collectivism, or democracy, or mob rule or whatever you want to call it). Modern libertarianism is not too popular for good reason: most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. The argument is over how much. Both anarcho-capitalism and utilitarians represent the extreme ranges of the political scale and are clearly unworkable: no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Wait, really? You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom. You're still acting as if it is obvious and intuitive that if someone wants something, they want the government to provide it. I think it might be illuminating to replace the government with some other entity, like, say, IBM or the local library, e.g. "Everyone knows we need to provide for people in their old age. That's why I think IBM should take some of my money every time I get paid, and give it to old people." This sounds absurd, of course, but it does bring up the question of why one should automatically assume that a monopolistic government is the only entity that can do certain tasks -- that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question.
  - 18y ago

Just curious: Why do you say that Ayn Rand may not be popular around here?

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

ivey 18y ago

That tends to be a safe assumption in most places.

maw 18y ago

Because bad parodies are, well, bad, and Atlas Shrugged reads like nothing so much as a parody of classical liberalism written by a recent convert to communism without a shred of literary talent.

gills 18y ago
Wow, that's pretty harsh. I'm currently reading that book for the first time, and I don't agree with you. Quite the opposite, actually. Despite the repeated and annoying misuse of the past-tense form of 'light', and the obviously strained attempts to inject philosphy into dialogue, there are some good points in the book. I would be interested in reading any elaboration you may personally wish to undertake.
- jfarmer 18y ago
  Wait until the book turns into an action movie in the last few hundred pages.
- maw 18y ago
  There are good ideas in Atlas Shrugged, but they're presented so badly as to resemble a strawman argument. My copy is 1069 pages long, but Rand says nearly everything she has to say within the first hundred. Although, to be fair, I'd read about her and was already a small-l libertarian, so there wasn't a whole lot new. But before I forget: yep, I'm a small-l libertarian. Rand and her followers and I wouldn't get along well, for the most laughable -- if they weren't pathetic -- of reasons. Peruse some of the results at http://www.google.com/search?q=objectivism+and+libertarianism http://www.google.com/search?q=objectivism+and+libertarianis.... Pretty sad, really. Rand had a number of other beliefs about topics such as the role of women in a heterosexual relationship and homosexuality that many people living in a modern society in the 21st century will have a hard time swallowing. That her ideas were unpopular doesn't make them wrong, of course. But I think they often were. Back to Rand's writing in Atlas Shrugged, I agree that the dialogue is bad, often simply not credible. But suspension of disbelief only works when some aspects of the story -- be they characters, settings, events, or something else -- remain recognizable from reality. But very little in Atlas is, certainly nothing key to the story. We the Living is a much better book than Atlas Shrugged, for what it's worth.
netcan 18y ago
Reads better then The Republic

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

Ayn Rand makes some salient points, but they were hardly original, even in her time. Rand took classic liberalism to its extreme, not realizing that all political systems are compromises between liberty and social power (or collectivism, or democracy, or mob rule or whatever you want to call it). Modern libertarianism is not too popular for good reason: most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. The argument is over how much. Both anarcho-capitalism and utilitarians represent the extreme ranges of the political scale and are clearly unworkable: no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Wait, really? You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom. You're still acting as if it is obvious and intuitive that if someone wants something, they want the government to provide it. I think it might be illuminating to replace the government with some other entity, like, say, IBM or the local library, e.g. "Everyone knows we need to provide for people in their old age. That's why I think IBM should take some of my money every time I get paid, and give it to old people." This sounds absurd, of course, but it does bring up the question of why one should automatically assume that a monopolistic government is the only entity that can do certain tasks -- that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question.
- 18y ago