Live data from Hacker News

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

online.wsj.com

41–50 of 147 posts

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#41
post #36
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the philosopher who made burgers.

Or the physicist who worked as a low-level railroad operator. I hate that most of the detractors of Atlas Shrugged misread the message. There are things to criticize, but the ones that do get criticized (Ayn Rand is a Nazi, she ignores the common laborer, she dares include a pirate as a character) are the ones that don't really matter regarding the main theme/are entirely wrong.

"I hate that most of the detractors of Atlas Shrugged misread the message."

You assume they read it at all.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#42
post #38

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

Comic author noted afterward that he hadn't actually read the book, wasn't aware that Rearden had (in the ficton) invented the metal himself, etc.

Why am I not surprised? Thanks for mentioning that.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#43
post #31
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for many of the same reasons, it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world, it provides a sense of tribal belonging and ready-made membership in a like-minded community. That said, I find it somewhat creepy to base one's life around a work of fiction.

God, that's kind of despicable. I'm no Objectivist, but there's a big freaking difference between a work of superstition and one of reason and logic. Whether you agree with Rand's premises, you must have had no exposure to her writing if you don't recognize her brilliance. She's not all right, but she's not wrong about everything either: The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun.

"The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun."

Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#44
post #15
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for many of the same reasons, it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world, it provides a sense of tribal belonging and ready-made membership in a like-minded community. That said, I find it somewhat creepy to base one's life around a work of fiction.

> it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.

(Not trying to be rhetoric, but a honest question ever since I encountered Rand's works)

If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? What would be the job of the government then?

"gives a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity" - what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#45
Atlas Shrugged is propaganda masquerading as art. The characters are thin shells used to promote Rand's thinking and in no way reflect reality.

The idea that unbridled self interest leads to the greatest good guided Greenspan's monetary policy and got us into this mess.

There is certainly a lot to be said for enlightened self interest and personal freedom, but the absolutism of objectivism is just as wrong as communism.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#46
post #43
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, that's kind of despicable. I'm no Objectivist, but there's a big freaking difference between a work of superstition and one of reason and logic. Whether you agree with Rand's premises, you must have had no exposure to her writing if you don't recognize her brilliance. She's not all right, but she's not wrong about everything either: The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun.

"The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun." Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?

It could be. I have friends who live in Costa Rica, and, deriving their income from outside CR, need pay no taxes. They talk pretty often about how great it is there. :)

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#47
Hmm. I tend to think that Rand's philosophy misses some important points, like:

1. Humans hate inequality, esp. those who are on the losing end, but it seems to make everyone unhappier in general. Inequality is useful, but probably needs some managing.

2. Massive wealth generated in modern societies, though it tends to fall into the hands of a few (exponentially so), is generated by having a society/collective. If you have more wealth than you could ever generate with your own two hands, then you're benefitting from society in a major way, regardless of how much society takes back. (Even this is not strictly true--what you can generate with your own two hands depends on education, inventions society has given to you (like language), etc. It's hard to calculate one's debt to society.)

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#48
post #6

Absolutism: Simple. Satisfying. Wrong.

I don't know.... I'm certain that I absolutely need food and water to survive. That's simple, satisfying, and quite helpful.

One of the many misunderstandings of Rand is that she's supposedly some dogged "absolutist" saying "thou shalt do this, that, and the other", when the truth was that Rand stressed the importance of context in making decisions. One holds principles as absolutes, yes, but principles are only useful if they are applied to reality -- to the particular situation at hand.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#49
I came across an interesting analogy about how Atlas Shrugged was the first book in a trilogy. And how Anthem was the 3rd book (the second book, "shrug harder" not having been written or released).

> Then [John Galt] went further and, in a fit of offended pique, promised to "stop the motor of the world," to kill 90% or so of Earth's population by intentionally wrecking the economy. Which he then did. How? By finding every other competent engineer or manager in the US and persuading them to be just as selfish as him, just as unwilling to pay back or protect their country; he declared a covert "strike of the mind," as he called it. He hid them all in a secretive compound in the Rocky Mountains, protected by force field and invisibility cloak, and waited for the US economy to collapse, which, obligingly, it did -- because John Galt had carefully sabotaged the bridges and railroads that made it possible for fuel and seeds to make it from the coastal cities to inland farms, and make it possible for food grown on inland farms to make it to the coastal cities. And as chaos was breaking out, he and his fellow inventors hijacked every radio transmitter in the US to broadcast his manifesto: You all deserve to die, for asking us to pay you back even one nickel, because we are all so selfish we don't consider any of the things you all paid for out of your taxes and that you did with your labor to have been at all helpful to us as entirely self-sufficient brilliant inventors and managers. So die.

> And that's where the series is interrupted. But from where the third book picks up, and by applying a little common sense, we can outline the main plot points, if not the characterizations, from the untitled middle volume, the one I'm whimsically calling Atlas Shrugged 2: Shrug Harder. When the previous book ran out, America was winding down to what was clearly going to be the last harvest, ever, and the Strikers were planning for the day that they, as the only people possessing any high tech or any capability of mass production of food or anything else, would ride out of their hidden Colorado fortress as humanity's saviors. They were pledging to themselves to build a new world based, as John Galt's manifesto had promised all Americans, on the virtue of selfishness. They assumed that a grateful (or at least desperately needy) and vastly reduced in number population would welcome them as liberators, chastened and having learned their lesson. Except that we know from the third book that that's not what happened, and anybody who knows human nature should have been able to predict that.

> Outside the valley, the conversion to local subsistence farming and the work of scavenging the dead cities for any usable metal would have been rough. No time or energy would have been available to save even minimal technology. We're looking at a collapse all the way back to (at best) early iron age levels, maybe even all the way back to the bronze age, and nobody will even have time to teach the next generation to read and write. But one thing very clearly did happen, in every survivor's village, and became world-wide policy as soon as even minimal travel and communication made it possible for the chiefs of the scattered villages of survivors began to reunite society into any kind of a civilization, and that is a fierce determination to make sure that the next generation remembered who had done this to them, and why they had done it. They would have educated their children to remember the names and descriptions of every one of the hated Strikers who had personally murdered four and a half billion people for a political point. And they would have educated their children that one idea, one idea in the Strikers' twisted minds, had lead to those four and a half billion deaths, the greatest act of genocide in human history: selfishness. How far did they go to eradicate selfishness? They went so far as to eradicate the first person pronoun from the language.

> Anthem is actually the best book of the three. And it's a credit to Rand that she realized just how monstrous the real results of the Strike would be. Many, many so-called Objectivists and Libertarians, who only read the first book, thought they were supposed to cheer for the Strikers, believed the Strikers' personal delusion that the Strike, and the resulting mass genocide, would usher in a techno-libertarian paradise on earth. No, in Anthem we get a view of John Galt's Earth from the viewpoint of someone who grew up in the next generation, never having known a technological world, knowing only a world in which selfishness is labeled the ultimate sin. http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/393124.html

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#50
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.

(Not trying to be rhetoric, but a honest question ever since I encountered Rand's works) If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? What would be the job of the government then? "gives a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity" - what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creato…

> If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government?

If everyone created value by Rand's standards, were highly rational and reasonable, did not destroy value, and were otherwise law-abiding (or simply moral) citizens, then you might not need government, or at least a very minimal one. We're incredibly far off from such a world, however (assuming it's even possible), so we at least need military protection, law enforcement, adjudication, etc. A great deal of people, even if law-abiding, aren't living up to their potential for a variety of reasons (many having to do with circumstance and not choice), and so other functions of government have been created to deal with that (with varying success). Other functions include dealing with collective action problems, financing academic research, and other things I'm likely forgetting.

> what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?

I mean the complexity of why many people aren't the productive juggernauts we would like them to be. I bought into Rand's picture of the world when I was introduced to her books, but over time, through constant checking of assumptions, realized that she was being grossly uncharitable towards the unproductive, content simply to label them as villains (which is why she's able to justify abandoning them). This, incidentally, has the self-reinforcing side effect of motivating aspiring John Galts to work even harder as a way of defining themselves in contrast to such villainy. Contempt for the unproductive is a limitless source of motivating juice. (That was my experience, anyway. Wish I still had access to it!)

Whatever its faults, I feel Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers gives a pretty good idea of the (often unintentional) social processes and historical contingencies that keep people from living up to their potential.

From an article previously linked on HN:

This time, he’s talking about a very serious academic concept, devised by the psychologist James Flynn (“One of my heroes,” Gladwell says, swooning), called the human capitalization rate, or “cap rate,” which, Gladwell explains, “refers to the rate at which a given community capitalizes on the human potential of those in its midst.” In the United States, Gladwell is sad to report, “cap rates are really low” owing to poverty, stupidity, and culture.

http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html

Post reply on HN