Posted on 03/06/2007 2:42:33 PM PST by RWR8189
When Ayn Rand finished writing "Atlas Shrugged" 50 years ago this month, she set off an intellectual shock wave that is still felt today. It's credited for helping to halt the communist tide and ushering in the currents of capitalism. Many readers say it transformed their lives. A 1991 poll rated it the second-most influential book (after the Bible) for Americans.
At one level, "Atlas Shrugged" is a steamy soap opera fused into a page- turning political thriller. At nearly 1,200 pages, it has to be. But the epic account of capitalist heroes versus collectivist villains is merely the vehicle for Ms. Rand's philosophical ideal: "man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
In addition to founding her own philosophical system, objectivism, Rand is honored as the modern fountainhead of laissez-faire capitalism, and as an impassioned, uncompromising, and unapologetic proponent of reason, liberty, individualism, and rational self-interest.
There is much to commend, and much to condemn, in "Atlas Shrugged." Its object – to restore man to his rightful place in a free society – is wholesome. But its ethical basis – an inversion of the Christian values that predicate authentic capitalism – poisons its teachings.
Mixed lessons from Rand's heroes
Rand articulates like no other writer the evils of totalitarianism, interventionism, corporate welfarism, and the socialist mindset. "Atlas Shrugged" describes in wretched detail how collective "we" thinking and middle-of-the-road interventionism leads a nation down a road to serfdom. No one has written more persuasively about property rights, honest money (a gold-backed dollar), and the right of an individual to safeguard his wealth and property from the agents of coercion ("taxation is theft"). And long before Gordon Gekko, icon
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
"But its ethical basis – an inversion of the Christian values that predicate authentic capitalism"
A is not A.
Or should I say,
Not A is not not A.
"Ayn Rand is a materialist, just like the Bolshevists she criticized."
Her criticism of materialists is scathing and lucid.
"Ayn Rand's philosophy hurts America and hurts capitalism...Libertarianism is a rationalization for evil."
I guess you haven't read her scathing criticism of libertarians.
"Not necessarily, but I do think it would be detrimental. Religion (Christianity, Judaism or even Buddhism and Islam) is a strong promoter of decency and puts a check on materialism."
What then puts a check on mysticism?
"I came away that the author was saying that giving to other people was some sort of weakness, not a strength"
No. If giving to someone promotes your (rational) values, then you are acting to promote your own life. That is rational. That is what Rand advocated.
That sentence you are attributing to me was from a previous poster. The second sentence is mine. Should have used quotes.
In fact, that is correct. For example, NaN != NaN
I know. I realized just after I posted. Sorry.
His misuse of the word is very much intentional. John Stossel's news diary airs on ABC. He is the only non-liberal there, yet he was such a good journalist for so long, that he was able to negotiate a contract allowing him exclusive control over content. Because he broadcasts to the dumb-masses (don't say it to fast), he has to translate his thoughts down to the lowest denominator in order for his message to be effective. The concept of enlightened self-interest is translated to greed for public consumption.
"Dumb-masses", very interesting!
The concept of enlightened self-interest is translated to greed for public consumption.
Or, perhaps his intent is to dress-up greed so he can take her out in public. That actually makes more sense than your convoluted excuse.
For years, I lived in a small town in Virginia. In our town, there was about 1000 people. There was one service station, and it sat on the corner and sold people gasoline for their cars. In my town, this service station had a monopoly, because there were no other competitors for as far as the eye could see. Why? Because our little hamlet could not support two service stations. If another service station would have come to town, it's very likely that both stations would have gone out of business.
So, it is a bad thing that I didn't have a choice where I filled up my car? Or would it rather have been better if another competitor opened up across the street and then both went out of business?
You have "big city" mentality, and you cannot fathom a world without tons of choices for everything from groceries to gasoline. But for much of America, there are far fewer choices, and we get along just fine.
Let's be very clear about this: antitrust laws are some of the most destructive, anticapitalist laws ever to be passed in this country. Regretfully, we'll never know what efficiencies have been lost because of their enactment and enforcement. It is only now, after 100 years of destruction left in antitrust's wake, is the Supreme Court finally beginning to reel in these monsters.
For some reason I love both Ayn Rand and Stephen King--two writers with a gift for saying in 10 pages what could have been said in one paragraph.
Just this morning on CNBC, I watched a story about how Unilever, an $86 billion dollar company and the second largest consumer food product manufacturer in the word, was the target of a takeover bid from a private equity group.
Dude, let me let you in on a secret: this is the 21st Century; there are no such thing as non-governmental barriers to entry. The amount of money that is available in private equity is staggering. There is no door that $100 billion won't open.
yikes.
this thread is still going
well said !
That is exactly what I said. Are you trying to say there is something wrong with that?
Obviously there is something wrong, or he wouldn't feel the need to church it up.
I think you misunderstand the message. There is a massive social pressure in our culture today that attempts to paint all persons with wealth as evil monsters that survive from the butchered and mangled bodies of those less fortunate. It is class warfare against the economic engines of society. Stossel has attempted to illustrate that persons with wealth did not gain it by the suffering of others as the Communists, Socialists, Modern Liberals and Democrats portend. An individual's greed or self interest, or whatever you feel their motivation should be called, has made the United States the most successful and prosperous society the world has seen up to now. There is nothing wrong or evil in that.
The Chairman of the corporation that I work for successfully runs the company and I directly benefit from his effort by remaining employed. A Five-year-plan with the most skilled bureaucrat in charge could never do as well because there is no direct incentive if there is no self interest.
No one ever said that I couldn't mail a hundred dollars to Breast Cancer Research as I just happened to do today. I can still give money to help the Souix Indian orphans in South Dakota. I'll never think something is wrong with attempting to stop the class warfare and redistribution of income that the Democrats are doing up to this moment.
Or did I totally misunderstand your comment and you feel that the Dumb-masses should not be talked down to? If so, do you feel that first graders should be taught from college textbooks? Look at the print adds for the military. The Navy and Air Force offer a chance to travel the world and receive a good education. The US Army invites you to develop your potential and be strong. The US Marines just show pictures and a cool uniform. John Stossel has to tailor his message to his intended audience. I don't think that is churching it up.
If greed means excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves; and deserve means to acquire as a result of one's behavior or effort, then, again, it makes no sense to use the word "greed" to describe a behavior that falls within the normal range unless you want to distort the meaning of the word "greed" to make the pathological appear normal.
A Five-year-plan with the most skilled bureaucrat in charge could never do as well because there is no direct incentive if there is no self interest.
The argument can be made that the CEO with a guaranteed golden parachute, no matter how badly he screws up, is less motivated than the bureaucrat who faces job loss without benefits.
Or did I totally misunderstand your comment and you feel that the Dumb-masses should not be talked down to?
What I am talking about is using words accurately - its a kind of honesty thing. What is the point of misinforming in the name of "education"?
...do you feel that first graders should be taught from college textbooks?
If I teach my first grader that greed means cooperative economic pursuit as described in the editorial, have I done her a favor? Furthered her education or contributed to muddled thinking?
(As a matter of fact, I didn't talk down to my daughter. If I used a word she didn't understand, she would ask me what it meant. The result was when tested in forth grade, she scored college level in vocabulary.)
i was more influenced by her "the new left; the anti-technological revolution".
these are essays of the early and mid-sixties.
boy, did she have the new left pegged!
she knew commies when she saw them!
of course, she came from the soviet union.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.