Yeah, baby!!
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 ...
I heard the movie was starring Mike Myers and is called Atlas Shagged.
...ummm...one would think Ayn Rand would welcome open discussion...or is that too free for you?
I am about halfway through the book now. I had to put it down for a while...I will pick it up and finish it someday.
Rand had some very good ideas. I don't accept her seeming atheism and total self-sufficiency but I do believe she had it pretty right on when it comes to the economic engine that fuels creativity and prosperity.
Well that's what he gets for 50+ pages of bloviating.
BTTT
Yeah, baby!!
"Maybe that 130 million should go on strike?"
I say immediately.
"America could do much worse than to look to the works of Ayn Rand, for insight into a way out of our current ineffectual, politically correct morass."
Ayn Rand's philosophy hurts America and hurts capitalism. The West cannot survive without Christianity and/or Western ethics. Ayn Rand is a materialist, just like the Bolshevists she criticized.
Libertarianism is a rationalization for evil.
Nobody's choices are narrowed via laissez-faire capitalism. We are all free to pursue our endeavors and create our own path. Everybody's choices are narrowed via regulatory policies. Hence the word, "regulate."
The dangers of monopoly are real - risks which Rand and her laissez-faire capitalism do not fully appreciate.
You're kidding, right? You've thought out the economic and social ramifications laissez-faire capitalism more thoroughly than Ayn Rand? You really should write a book.
Put me in the "play fair" capitalist niche - almost no regulation other than that which ensures some level of fair competition.
And who decides what regulations are "fair?"
ping for later
Excellent and enjoyable post. I'm usually able to find SOMETHING to disagree with, but I have to say you nailed it.
Been fifty years...
Bother. You have nothing to lose and so much to gain.
We need Galt's Gulch...now more than ever!
The Fountainhead was a great read, but nowhere near the same league as Atlas Shrugged.
"Are you suggesting that if it were to be conclusively proven tomorrow that God does not exist, that the West would collapse? Rubbish.
Western ethical practices have some roots in religion; however, they are also derived from the function of rational thought. Suggesting that it is impossible to have an ethical existence without a belief in God is ridiculous."
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.
The decline of Christianity in the West has led to excessive materialism, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, and other evils.
Capitalism without Christianity either leads to a tyrannical, inhumane order similar to how animals live. Or it leads to Marxism when the materialistic population rises up after figuring it can live better by having everything handed to it.
There's a reason Marx called religion the opiate of the masses - because it adds stability to the capitalist system he hated.
I came away that the author was saying that giving to other people was some sort of weakness, not a strength
I think you misunderstood her philosophy in that regard. She had no problem whatsoever with giving to others as long as it wasn't at your own expense. She objected to altruism which insists you sacrifice yourself for others. I doubt seriously that she would object to Bill Gates for instance giving his money away since he isn't impoverishing himself for others although I'm dead certain she would take issue with the projects his foundation undertakes.
I agree with you but that condition is not limited to capitalism but to any system run by human beings. There is always a tendency of people in power to rig the system so they will never face the possibility of being out of power. Companies do this by setting up anticompetitive arrangements so they won't have to continue to do the things that made their businesses grow in the first place. Being responsive to customers and making sure you stay on the top of your market is more difficult than telling giving the customers no choice in the matter.
The government is a prime example of this. If the people can not say no then there is no credible way to stop the growth of government. That is why I believe strongly that taxation should be entirely voluntary and that government branches should have to go to the public and private sector with justifications for their existence. Also the government should be treated like any other entity when collecting debts or dealing with citizens outside the arena of national security. The idea that any group in a social system can exercise absolute power runs contrary to the foundation of this nation and we should be wary of anyone who claims expediency as an excuse for tyranny.
Currently our system only gives lip service to checks and balances. The judicial branch clearly has the last word and is the effective governing power with the other two branches emasculated at the whim of the Supreme Court. The status quo in the government, something which I am very familiar with, is effectively a nation run by a collective that never finds its fill. The federal unions strangle any semblance of efficiency which is the primary delineating factor between the effectiveness of our troops and the lack of effectiveness in other areas of bureaucracy.
I believe every agency of government should have a product that is measurable and any agency that does not have a measurable product should be shut down. It is from those measures that wages structures should be set and performance pay be established. The idea that a government job is a safe job should be a thing of the past. I know from my own experience that groups within agencies play games with budget requests, they will never say they have enough people to do a job regardless of the number of idle people on staff. They craft projects not out of need but out of the fact that money is available and must be spent. It is a disgusting incestuous process and the biggest game of pretend played by a federation structured more like a thieves guild than a group assigned to do the "work of the people".
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.