'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by unalone » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 6:56 AM UTC

gills wrote: post #9

I read this book for the first time, last summer. It was actually a little bit spooky -- OK, very spooky -- to read basically the same thing (metaphorically) in the book and the news most days of the week.

Very! I had the same experience when I read The Fountainhead for the first time, in the middle of an ego clash happening at my school.

It's important, I've found, not to mistake Rand's works for wholesale reality. She makes some incredibly good points, and I love her concept of the virtue of selfishness, but things are more complex than she writes about. She was aware of this too: her books are deliberately overstated in order to drive her points home. The economy, along with people in general, is more complex than headlines might make it seem.

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

#62

Post by unalone » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 7:01 AM UTC

fuzzmeister wrote: post #10

jules wrote: post #3

> readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

That's pretty disturbing, considering one of the book's main arguments is against altruism.

It's not altruism if you benefit from the results.

It was in Rand's best interests to influence as many people as possible, since she promotes a system of logic and selfishness to better people. If people subscribe to her theory of belief, she gains as much as they do.

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

#63

Post by unalone » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 7:05 AM UTC

jwesley wrote: post #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 communi…

You could say the same thing about every character ever written. They're all extensions of the author. Even a character as complex as, say, Stephen Dedalus, is in the end a product entirely of his creator's mind. One of the catches of reading fiction is that you always need to remember that they are the product of a single mind.

> 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.

But which concept is better? When you subscribe to an idea you do it for the practical idea of it. Communism says that you should put everybody in front of you, and do what everybody else thinks you should. (Or rather, subjectivism does, since that's the true opposite of Objectivism; Communism rather states that the community is more important than the individual, which is closer to subjectivism.) Objectivism says that you should rely on yourself to do what's right. The one is much healthier mentally, and that's a good sign.

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

#64

Post by unalone » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 7:06 AM UTC

jhancock wrote: post #34

sometimes I won't click on a link simply because to do so may encourage writing more content of its nature. this is one of those times ;)

So you're saying that you think that closedmindedness on your part is a good way of stopping other people from discovering ideas? Even if those ideas are closedminded, you do better to critique the actual article rather than avoid it. Criticism is the quickest way to kill a bad idea.

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

#65

Post by muerdeme » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 7:14 AM UTC

walterk wrote: post #56

maxharris wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenspan turned his back on Objectivism during the 70s.

He did? In what way? (Genuinely curious.) My understanding is that, despite some of his views being at odds with her own, Rand was happy to have him in her inner circle anyway.

Before: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north204.html

After: Central banker

That's the gist of the argument. I'm not going to pretend to know where the line between Objectivism's general ideals and economic ideals lies.

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

#66

Post by walterk » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 7:33 AM UTC

Tangurena wrote: post #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…

That is a fantastic post and thread. Thanks for linking.

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

#67

Post by rw » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 8:07 AM UTC

opticksversi wrote: post #53

msie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

According to this... http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_26_fr.pdf [pdf] ... any given nation would be nicer, with no income- (including capital-gains) or consumption- taxes. . if the tax rate tends towards zero percent, its influence on the decisions taken by persons affected tends to be negligible. ... less taxation, and, in addition, less distortionary taxation is desirable. Several studies even demonstrate tha…

Do you agree with that quote? Do you think "less distortionary taxation" is a reasonable price to pay for, say, no public grade schools, especially in at-risk communities?

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

#68

Post by rw » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 8:08 AM UTC

prospero wrote: post #4

I have striking insights into totalitarianism. The left, naturally, hates me.

The right, naturally, hates you.

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

#69

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 8:11 AM UTC

awfabian wrote: post #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 yo…

I think it's important what kind of inequality we're talking about. Are we talking inequality between two people with similar opportunities and education, one lazy and unimaginative and the other a creative risk taker?

Or are we talking inequality between joe the dock worker, son of a dock worker, working the dock reasonably well, but never looking beyond, and jack the corporate lawyer, son of a corporate lawyer, working the legal docs reasonably well, but never looking beyond?

Inequality throughout history was rarely down to merit. I very much sympathise with Rand's point of view, but after having lived in one of the most run-down parts of the UK, I know that poverty breeds poverty.

Yes the superstars rise from poverty through their own work and they should not be punished for it. But for every superstar there are 100 joe/jack pairs and the difference between their income is based on little else than class.

[edit] Jill the waitress might have been a better example since dock workers have a powerful trade union in some countries.

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

#70

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 8:33 AM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #51

So because government programs in a work of fiction caused more harm than good, all government programs in the non-fiction world must be bad. Good logic.

Oh, don't interfere with the beautiful ways of ideology ;-)

But seriously, government programs are in great danger of failing because _all_ big projects are in great danger of failing. I think you would easily find evidence of that.

Taking a centralised decision on how to spend over a trillion dollars within a year or two, allowing no time for readjustment or seeing what actually works, is a very high risk business, no matter if it's government or anyone else who does it.

Granted, a lot of that money is not going to be spent on new projects but will be used to speed up existing ones.