HH: Atlas Shrugged

HH, I figured you’d be the best guy to ask since you seem to reference Ayn Rand alot, but feedback from others is cool too.

I’ve got a beaten up copy of Atlas Shrugged that’s been sitting in my bookshelf for a few years now. When I first got it I got about 200 pages into it then put it down and went on to other books. I consider myself a Goldwater Republican and I’m not entirely sure it’s worth my time to pick this back up and read it again when I’ve got tons of other books I’ve been wanting to read.

So the questions really is, is it worth my time to to read it? Considering that my political leanings are likely in line with Ms. Rand’s am I going to get any value out of it?

mike

You might do just as well to read something like Cliff’s Notes on Atlas Shrugged if
any such thing exists. I read it 10 yrs or so ago and felt it was an apology for laissez
faire capitalism which is understandable
considering Ms Rand’s background.

Two or three years ago I told a librarian I felt it was one of the most over rated books I’d read. Recent events have made me reconsider.
I am pretty conservative (somewhere to the
right of Genghis Kahn) but feel that while the book conveys a message we might all do well to consider there are some literary
weaknesses that keep it from being a real page turner.

For one, why did she use the
railroad tycoon as the main character as late as 1957? I’m no literary critic but I
just didn’t feel that it was well written by today’s standards.

You have to stick it out. Ayn Rand books go from incredibly relevant to incredibly dull and redundant. Overall I find her fictional writings very good, but you have to endure the painful overexertion for half a chapter or so. In my opinion, The Fountainhead is a better read. Both are worth the attention needed to finish.

I have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead several times each.

I enjoyed them, but consider them to be somewhat like the Bible (which I’ve also read, and enjoyed): books that seem to require too many pages, two-dimensional characters, and implausible story lines, to impart to the reader a simple message entirely too many times.

If you want a good encapsulation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, without all of the dross (and Atlas Shrugged can get pretty drossy in there, particularly when John Galt finally speaks), read For the New Intellectual.

“When a man, a business corporation or an entire society is approaching bankruptcy, there are two courses that those involved can follow: they can evade the reality of their situation and act on a frantic, blind, range-of-the-moment expediency-not daring to look ahead, wishing no one would name the truth, yet desperately hoping that something will save them somehow-or they can identify the situation, check their premises, discover their hidden assets and start rebuilding.”

The best way to read Atlas Shrugged is to stop and ponder, and then find a table that isn’t level and insert it under the shortest leg. JK HH, I know I just basically pissed on your holy book! I would have like AS better if I knew how to read.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
HH, I figured you’d be the best guy to ask since you seem to reference Ayn Rand alot, but feedback from others is cool too.

I’ve got a beaten up copy of Atlas Shrugged that’s been sitting in my bookshelf for a few years now. When I first got it I got about 200 pages into it then put it down and went on to other books. I consider myself a Goldwater Republican and I’m not entirely sure it’s worth my time to pick this back up and read it again when I’ve got tons of other books I’ve been wanting to read.

So the questions really is, is it worth my time to to read it? Considering that my political leanings are likely in line with Ms. Rand’s am I going to get any value out of it?

mike[/quote]

Having a philosophy degree makes my understanding of the book possibly different from someone whose not acquainted as well with the topic. How’s your philosophy background?

Anyway, what Ms. Rand tried to do was to put philosophy in terms that non-philosophers could understand. She was speaking to all of us but particularly those who, with no knowledge of philosophy, were taking some things as a given which were leading to their own destruction.

One of the main themes is to enlighten Henry Reardon. Reardon was being drained and was not aware that it was he who was permitting the draining, by accepting the moral code of altruism.

If you’d really seriously like to read the book, I’d recommend ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It?’ (by Ms. Rand) and Varq’s recommendation above. Both are short but tend to get at the points very quickly. Then read AS.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I enjoyed them, but consider them to be somewhat like the Bible (which I’ve also read, and enjoyed): books that seem to require too many pages, two-dimensional characters, and implausible story lines, to impart to the reader a simple message entirely too many times.

[/quote]

Have to agree with this one. I’ve read We the Living and Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged has really shaped my philosophy of government, taxation, handouts, etc etc, but I think stylistically it was a horribly written book and can be downright painful to read. I’m somewhat shocked I actually finished it, but in the end I am extremely glad I did because the message, albeit a bit too simplistic and dogmatic in my personal opinion, really does open your eyes about the harms of many social attitudes and institutions.

The book has little reason not to read it if you read a couple or several thousand words per minute.

I can’t imagine reading it if being a couple or few hundred words per minute reader, though.

For sure it would be a better book if tightened up to no more than half its actual length, and quite likely 1/4 the word count would have been better yet.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The book has little reason not to read it if you read a couple or several thousand words per minute.

I can’t imagine reading it if being a couple or few hundred words per minute reader, though.

For sure it would be a better book if tightened up to no more than half its actual length, and quite likely 1/4 the word count would have been better yet.[/quote]

They tried to tell Plato to do that to ‘The Republic’ but the bastard wouldn’t listen!

I think we have a consensus.

If you are looking at serious jail time and only get one book per week, you have a winner.

Thought this was relevant:

http://online.wsj.com/article SB123146363567166677.html

‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read “Atlas Shrugged” a “virgin.” Being conversant in Ayn Rand’s classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only “Atlas” were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
[Atlas Shrugged] Getty Images

The art for a 1999 postage stamp.

Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that “Atlas Shrugged” parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated “Atlas” as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises – that in most cases they themselves created – by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as “the looters and their laws.” Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the “Anti-Greed Act” to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act,” aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.” Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion – in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of “Atlas Shrugged”: The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That’s the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies – while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to “calm the markets,” another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as “Atlas” grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate “windfalls.”

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated – always in the public interest – into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to “Atlas,” a Wall Street Journal headline blared: “Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices.”

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal – stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in “the public good.” The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in “the public interest.”

Ultimately, “Atlas Shrugged” is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear – leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in “Atlas” occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: “You want me to be Economic Dictator?”

Mr. Thompson: “Yes!”

“And you’ll obey any order I give?”

“Implicitly!”

“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”

“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn’t do that . . . How would we pay government employees?”

“Fire your government employees.”

“Oh, no!”

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax “for purposes of fairness” as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand’s ideas, explains that “the older the book gets, the more timely its message.” He tells me that there are plans to make “Atlas Shrugged” into a major motion picture – it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. “We don’t need to make a movie out of the book,” Mr. Kelley jokes. “We are living it right now.”

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

I appreciate the post and, for the non-philosophical, its a good read.

The book is much deeper than that, however. The book looks for the causes of all those actions, and then Rand says that ALTRUISM is the moral code that is leading to the destruction of the world. The book is a moral indictment of altruism.

Also, Galt was a scientist, an inventor, not a businessman.

If someone followed the reasoning put forth by the author of the article above, they’d actually wind up right back where they were, because they haven’t rid themselves of their premise — altruism.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I appreciate the post and, for the non-philosophical, its a good read.

The book is much deeper than that, however. The book looks for the causes of all those actions, and then Rand says that ALTRUISM is the moral code that is leading to the destruction of the world. The book is a moral indictment of altruism.

Also, Galt was a scientist, an inventor, not a businessman.

If someone followed the reasoning put forth by the author of the article above, they’d actually wind up right back where they were, because they haven’t rid themselves of their premise — altruism.[/quote]

I work through this stuff for months now and the basic premise is not altruism, it is utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism was a direct reaction to libertarianism extreme individualism and would have been fine as such, but somehow Mills unquestioningly assumed to it was governments job to maximize happiness, which it is of course completely unable to do.

It was never about mindless sacrifice, but about raising the living standard of all to an optimum that could be, in the best of all cases, scientifically established.

Interestingly enough, Rothbard demonstrates that if you take the assumptions of modern welfare theory seriously, you arrive at one mechanism that automatically and continously raises the welfare of all participants, the free market.

p28