Ayn Rand - Is Atlas Shrugging?

Source: Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand
Narrated by: Anna Fields

[koyunbaba]

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged at the same time while reading Mark Steyn's "After America", which I'd recommend. This is bleak, so I would love it if somebody could convince me otherwise: The battle that Rand was fighting in Atlas Shrugged is long over; the looters have won decisively. Moreover, there is only a small number of people who would even recognize the stakes to begin with. There are no Hank Reardons anymore, only artefacts of greatness, suitable for a museum.

[EverDubin]

Love it!

We live in a society that is becoming less vigilant every generation.

"The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance". -Leonard Courtney

[freesk]

Atlas is shrugging. And for those of you with entrepreneurial or technical ability, Galt's Gulch is calling. Your timeshare is available.

[superturtleism]

You obviously never read any of her books or watched any of her interviews. She was very quick on her feet even in her later years. You may not agree with her but call her stupid is to shine the stupid light right onto yourself. Also social security is something that you pay into and then receive the benefits later in life. You are forced to participate by the gov so you might as well accept when the gov wants to give some of the money back to you.

[Dss]

I checked out your channel...looks like you have watched and "liked" many of the same videos that I have. It's always good (reassuring) to run into like minded individuals. Thank God for talk radio and the web...otherwise Conservative and Libertarian minded people would feel isolated...and defeated.

[Ravengaurd]

Atlas: Am I shrugging? I dunno! *shrug*

[Dss]

Mainly Capitalism functions on the law of Supply and Demand. Therefore it (Capitalism) is based upon the dynamics of reason, logic. It is by definition objective and the only requirement necessary to its success is that which is contributed by the "rugged individualist". The rugged individualist is anyone who has the talent, the work ethic and the courage to invest his own Capital of sweat and treasure at the risk of losing it all. What is more logical/reasonable than that?

[perpetualfeast]

finally, I've found an additional idea with which I can release the glamourous basis of the Rand theory to be part of my procured knowledge base on ethics: the point that the virtue of selfishness has a shortcoming of principal when matched with ideological hero worship and the art of the 'shrug'. Psychologically, the theory won't do on the whole for wide application in the mind of man, though her ideas as protagonist deepens us all.

[rzxwm]

When do you think Capitalism should be regulated? What are the complexities of the human factors involved in the system? I think it should only be regulated in regards to property rights (which is inherent in a capitalist system) and the protection of essential environmental resources, particularly water and air. Other than that, I don't see the need for any other intervention. When intervention are "required", the officials always provide a reason for it, but they never admit their role in it.

[lloydmassacre]

the problem was created by the government buddy, if you understood free market economics you would know that. you can't stick a peg in the system and have the government just back all mortgages and throw credit around like money is free. the banks took advantage but they should have never had that ability in the first place if the government stayed out of it and actually let free market forces and capitalism work

[panpiper]

I am myself most definitely on an Atlas Shrugged strike. I could be 'vastly' more productive than I am now, employing several people, but I am simply not willing to invest the time and frustration given the monumental ass kissing, appeasement and graft to the bureaucracy (government) that is required. Instead I am living off the avails of past work (I retired very early), contributing not a dime more towards the state and it's favorite projects (wars, etc.).

[MrApplewine]

The key thing to understand is that laws are legislation which are enacted for the protection of individual rights. So, in capitalism, the government creates a free market, by enacting laws which protect individual rights so people can act in matters of trade so that their rights are protected. Capitalism requires laws to create this free market. In order to understand the concept of a law, one has to understand the theory of rights, because these laws protect these rights.

[LucisFerre]

[[ I don't think that you wouldn't be able to love or start a family from an objectivist viewpoint.]]
-
BTW, investing in one's family, your and their future, isn't a sacrifice. That's an investment in which one has a reasonable expectation of future betterment, a gain and improvement in regard to what one values. A sacrifice is a net loss in values, not a net gain. If I "buy stock" in my family, I'm not looking to sacrifice, but to profit.

[Dss]

By your opening statement you demonstrate the very essence of arrogance. Your remarks demonstrate the antithesis of objective thought. Obviously you believe in collectivism and you are entitled to your opinion. Where does the notion of entitlement come from? How can you rationalize the idea that "A" is entitled to any part or share of "B's" treasure and therefore "C" (gov't) must take it by force from "B" in order to satisfy "A's" demand? This can not be rationalized. It is illogical and immoral

[HomelessOnline]

To each his own. I find her books and writings all very reasonable and obvious in their simplicity. Of the three concepts, "reason" seems to be the most subjective. What seems unreasonable to me can seem illogical to others. It's too bad comments are so limited, I'm curious to hear your disagreements.

[objectivistathlete]

You've got it all backwards. I am not claiming that one has to value the achievement of others over one's own. That is entirely your conjecture. I am saying that the selfish man will receive psychic satisfaction from helping another achieve - which can only be done through the achievement of the selfish man himself (i.e. a teacher successfully teaching his pupil). This applies not only to other humans but to things - e.g. Roark's architecture and Galt's physics.

[LucisFerre]

You're wrong. In the statement "I love you", who is the subject? The sentence is about "I", the one doing the loving. I love you means that I value you greatly. "Selfless" love makes no more sense than selfless hate. Who is doing the loving, the hating? Understanding this point is key to understanding the philosophical concept of egoism, especially rational egoism.

[BJRoes]

So Atlas Shrugs means Fuck The World?
Hell yeah, I can get on board with that

[objectivistathlete]

You entirely miss the point of what I'm saying. Have you even read Atlas Shrugged or anything by Ayn Rand? It does work for children. If you value achievement (which a rationally selfish man does), then you will help others achieve! That includes children! Objectivist "charity" is not about giving a man a fish, it's about teaching men to fish.

[fzqlcs]

She defines selfishness as that which the individual deems to be in their rational self-interest. She objects to altruism/sacrifice, which is to place the values of others above your own. Obviously, there would be no conflict with giving to support your personal values.