Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market?

Wall Street Journal ^ | 4 Dec. 2009 | Heather Wilhelm

[Fast Moving Angel]

Wouldn’t it be a kick if they talked Sarah Palin into playing Dagny?

[ArmyTeach]

Wow!

[BradyLS]

Wouldn’t it be a kick if they talked Sarah Palin into playing Dagny?

That's more awesome than my mind can handle!

[BradyLS]

Actually, I would recommend two of Rand’s other books before tackling “Atlas Shrugged.” Both are short reads, by comparison, and serve to introduce Ayn as a writer and a philosopher in a captivating manner. These will set you up pretty well for her magnum opus.

1. “We the Living” (Rand’s first published novel. Gets her main points across and the overall story is a well-told romance set in post-revolutionary Leningrad.) If you can find it, you can watch an Italian film adaptation called “Noi Vivi.”)

2. “The Virtue of Selfishness” (This book will REALLY prepare you understand everything Rand throws at you on your first pass of “Atlas Shrugged.” Basically, it’s a series of articles that cover aspects of her philosophy. I couldn’t finish or quite get “Atlas Shrugged” till I read this. After that, “Atlas’” was a snap. I “got” it!)

[BradyLS]

Problem is, the steamy parts aren’t all that steamy!

[BradyLS]

Oh, yeah... A few years after Rand wrote “Atlas’,” science fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote a stunning novel that covers much of the same ground as Atlas did. It’s called “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” and pits the human colonies on the moon against a governing UN body called the Lunar Authority.

Whether you could get through “Atlas’” or not or whether you liked it or not, I can’t recommend this book highly enough as follow-up reading.

Finally, you might want to track down a copy of “The Ayn Rand Lexicon.” Compiled by Harry Binswanger, it’s a compendium of Rand’s opinion on a wide range of modern topics. If you like Rand, a real must-have.

[JDoutrider]

marker

[Misterioso]

The joke is that anyone might think anything Rand wrote is “steamy.” Stimulating in every way, however.

[Hank Kerchief]

Thanks for the ping.

I could not care less what this ignorant woman writes, and either would Rand, if she were alive. As one of her characters remarked to a writer like this one in response to the question, “what do you think of me?” Rand wrote, “I do not think of you.”

However, I do find it amusing when those who really know nothing about Rand, except what those two lying bastards, the Brandens wrote, attempt to characterize her.

For example: “Doubts are starting to emerge. Leonard Liggio, a respected figure in libertarian circles and a guest at Rand’s post-’Atlas Shrugged’ New York get-togethers, sees value in Rand but admits she wasn’t a bridge builder. ‘She used strong, confrontational language, forcing people to react,’ he says. ‘And maybe that’s not the best way to educate people.’ Mr. Mellor agrees: ‘Is Rand’s exact message the best for most audiences today? Probably not.’

First, her message was never meant for “today’s audience.” She had nothing to say to those who do not choose to live their lives as independent individualists. She never wanted to start a movement, and she had no desire to be a bridge-builder. If I may borrow her style of rhetoric, “how does one build a bridge between pus and penicillin?”

Unless one has read her personal correspondence, which is available, they cannot know the patience and graciousness with which she dealt with others, even others who strongly disagreed with her.

As for her Atheism, she was much more gracious toward Christians than Christians are toward her, as I’ve noted before, here:

http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/articles/article80.php

I’ll not defend Rand, because she would not need it. She, like her friend Mencken, really didn’t care about what other’s thought, because they did not need anyone’s approval or agreement—which is why the second-handers and inferior despised them, and still do.

Hank

[whodathunkit]

First, her message was never meant for “today’s audience.” She had nothing to say to those who do not choose to live their lives as independent individualists. She never wanted to start a movement, and she had no desire to be a bridge-builder.

Agreed.

Using this understanding of Rand, and applying it to the statement in the article-

" who could imagine Rand debating a health-care bill?"

It would alter the debate in such a way that the proponents must demonstrate the validity of their position before it is brought to the floor.

The Author assumes that denial of debate is an undesireable action. Rands position forces those who wish to debate to demonstrate a benefit of a proposed action, by denying the argument of 'hope and change'.

[LonePalm]

As John Kennedy would say:

Ich bin Ayn Rander

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[wolfpat]

Have you noticed that when you put the book down, and read a newspaper, you see those same people all over again.

[FreeKeys]

And as I recall, that’s it - Rand, I expect, had little interest in children, and that’s not surprising: raising children is, at it’s core, a multi-year exercise in altruism (and we can’t have any of that!).

Actually, in many of her non-fiction writings in her later years she says that taking care of your family is a virtuous act of selfishness. The altruism she despises is the "pure" form in which you get absolutely NO benefit from your self-sacrifice, not even in the long run. Where I disagree with her is her apparent inability to grasp how most Americans define selfishness and unselfishness -- and how it has led precisely to the type of misunderstanding you may have been subject to.

For me, I have found it vastly easier for most people to understand by explaining that there are two kinds of selfishness, one being a virtue, and one being a vice (Imagine! We have a word that stands for BOTH good AND evil -- the kind of confusion only politicians delight in exploiting!) The good kind is taking care of yourself AND YOUR FAMILY first; the bad kind taking advantage of unwilling others (which is what politicians do all the time). See: http://freedomkeys.com/paradox.htm#pcdt

click this

[x]

The only problem I had with her was her diatribe against “organized religion” (seemingly the Catholic church, of which I have my own issues with it) in Atlas Shrugged.

But the rest is sound.

But that goes to the core of her philosophy.

Can one really follow Jesus and Ayn Rand?

Even if it's logically not impossible, the difference in style and manner is hard to bridge.

[BradyLS]

I have. It’s uncanny. Almost creepy. Times and fashions change, people don’t. She understood how people think so well.

She could probably ask ten questions of anyone she ever met and gauge how they would answer any other question she could ever ask—and why!

[ConservativeMind]

In general, Ayn believed in property rights. Once once accepts Christ, the property of your body belongs to God, of which He allows you to be the steward.

Ayn had no problems with someone giving another something on their own accord, as long as that which was being given was first wholly owned by the one giving. She did not believe anyone had the right to take from another what the other did not freely give.

She also believed in following laws, but the great danger she saw was in adding and perverting laws. She believed in leaving the power with the people while encouraging the people to think and act responsibly while respecting and encouraging others to do likewise.

This is not incongruent with Christianity at this level.