Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that most people who aren't fans of Atlas Shrugged resort to making dumb, belittling jokes about it rather than articulating an argument. The internet is full of parodies, etc., but there really aren't many people who dislike the book and are also capable of persuasively arguing against it without resorting to religious authority or mocking sneers (or both). Why? Probably because most people haven't read the boo…
When I first read the book, I started looking for criticism to see if I'd been tricked, or if she'd played on my emotions to make me think something was reasonable or logical that wasn't. I have found some obscure philosophical arguments that seemed to be based on a misunderstanding or different interpretation, or making a mountain out of what I think is a molehill. But those are in the minority. Almost all the criti…
The main theme of Atlas Shrugged, as I saw it, is that really smart/creative people are often used and abused by people in power, and that if all the smart/creative people left, that society would collapse.
Now, any attractive philosophy needs to have at least a grain of truth to be popular--and I fully agree that people are abused and manipulated by those in power. I identify as a smart and creative person, so of COURSE I want to be the one calling the shots, and not some idiot!
Where Rand falls short is in idolizing capitalism and taking an idealistic view of human nature. She also misses that if ANY large enough group walked out on society, it would grind to a halt--and that includes truck drivers, janitors, or whoever. It's called a strike.
The reality is that people are born into situations that make it possible to be smart/creative. The studies on this are conclusive--just giving a poor kid an extra year of preschool raises their chance of graduating high school, and their salary 35 years later. It's a fact that you were born to parents who taught you well as a young child that makes you smart enough to be arguing the merits of Ayn Rand.
This all destroys her core axiom that people who are the smart and creative builders of society are that way because of some inner moral purity, and therefore they deserve to be treated fairly--and the rest of society be damned, because they aren't as hard working/moral/whatever. The truth is that smart people are equally likely to be selfish (and lazy!) jerks; "enlightened self interest" is a fantasy that doesn't exist outside of possibly a few individuals and Rand novels. Looking at the other side, people without money or advanced skills frequently will vote against their own economic interests in order to vote their beliefs.
You can't base a real system of government on wishful thinking--ask the USSR how that worked out. Ironic that Rand came from that background only to espouse her own philosophy equally based on wishful thinking...but I digress.
The whole reality, in my opinion, is much bigger than just smart people being exploited: EVERYONE should be treated fairly, and no one should be exploited. Rand entices smart people by telling them that they're special, and that THEY are the ones should should be running the world. And to some degree I can buy into this. ;)
But not to the exclusion of helping others--and the sad truth of the matter is that charities can NOT do enough simply from voluntary contributions to support those who weren't as lucky in selecting their genes, and that means that taxes and government social programs are a necessary part of the moral behavior of society.
As are government rules that protect workers, or that protect the food supply, or that protect the environment, and the other things that libertarianism/objectivism would have us do away with.
She argues for pure, unregulated capitalism, and that's just completely insane. There's too much corporate influence in government as it is, and not enough regulation. Unless you think oil spills are fun, and don't mind the environmental damage that big Ag causes, and think that miners SHOULD be risking their lives for low pay, and on and on...
The reality is that the market spectacularly fails under some circumstances, and that government is necessary to regulate it.
There. I've said it. Let the libertarian downvoting commence...