SERIOUSLY, FUCK AYN RAND
I used to think Ayn Rand was the bomb but I outgrew it. You know, when I turned 12.
We all know that liberalism is for the (naive, inexperienced, foolish) young while conservatism is a natural byproduct of aging, maturing, and gaining experience with the world, right? Conventional wisdom gets it wrong yet again. The surge in popularity of objectivism and libertarianism on campus underscores how right wing ideology, not pie-in-sky liberalism, is the real fantasyland for kids who have absolutely no experience in the real world.
Yes, Ayn Rand is making a comeback among the college-aged. Objectivism is even getting some mainstream press in light of Commissar Obama frog-marching the nation toward hardcore Communism. Heroic individualists are threatening to "go galt" now that Obama has completely eliminated all incentive for anyone to work ever again, re-enacting their own version of the "producers' strike" in Atlas Shrugged.
I've gotten a little more mellow in recent years, believe it or not, less keen to argue and more able to see middle ground. But there is no middle ground here, no way for us to meet halfway in intellectual compromise: If you are an Objectivist, you are retarded. This is a judgment call, and I just made it. Grow up or fuck off. Those are your two options.
First of all, let us never overlook the fact that Rand's novels are atrocious as literature. Boring, repetitive, unconscionably long-winded, and written at approximately a 10th Grade level. Her wooden characters, the dialogue that makes you feel like you're being lectured by your uncle, and the idiotic plot all read as if written by a 17 year-old shut-in who spends a lot of time touching himself under a life-sized poster of Hayek. Atlas Shrugged is to literature what Battlefield: Earth is to film – it's five times too long and leaves readers wondering if Rand ever met another human being let alone successfully interacted with one.
Second, whatever respect we could have for Rand in light of her awful writing skills is obliterated by her unbelievably sophomoric "philosophy." It's exactly the kind of anti-intellectual, preachy, self-aggrandizing shit that plays well with immature people who think the world revolves around them – in other words, college kids. Yet Objectivists themselves have contempt for academia, which refuses to dignify their little cult with serious study. But who could be expected to take this sort of thing seriously?
"Just this weekend," said Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) on Wednesday in an interview with TWI, "I had a guy come up to me in my district and tell me that he was losing his interest in the business he'd run for years because the president wanted to punish him for his success."
John, your constituent is a friggin' idiot. He is exactly the kind of ex-fratboy MBA who thinks of himself as a linchpin of society, an "Atlas" upon whom the nation rests, but in reality could be replaced by any literate college grad or, in many cases, an unusually motivated ape. Think about this logic (or "logic") for a second: this guy no longer wants to run his business because his taxes went up a few percent. The government wants to reduce his income by 10%, so his response is to reduce it by 100%. Sheer brilliance. Go ahead, Mr. Irreplaceable. Close your business. Go broke to "teach us a lesson" about how important you are. We'll just have to struggle on without you. I am trying to be tactful here, but if this logic makes sense to you, I have to be emphatic: you are retarded. You're far more likely to be in the bottom rung of society than among the "producers."
Conventional wisdom is wrong. It's not "Liberal at 20 or no heart, conservative at 30 or no brain." Only the young can indulge (on mom and dad's tuition dollar, by the way) this kind of solipsistic ME ME ME horseshit. People who mature beyond adolescence start realizing that, hey, there are other people in the world and that sitting on one's ass lecturing them about what they shouldn't have done is of limited use. Politics is about solving problems, not moralizing. Life is about living in society, not in one's own head. Objectivists are right to target college kids, though, a demographic highly susceptible to new "-isms" in their first foray away from Ham Bone, Iowa or wherever. They're also the kind of people most likely to find dichotomous, black-and-white morality appealing. Accordingly I should go easy on this new generation of Objectivists with their natural abundance of naivete, youth, and selfishness. Happily, those who mature emotionally beyond the age of 18 will soon outgrow it. But there's a fine line between deserving sympathy and inviting a vicious intellectual beatdown, and the line is starting to blur.
In conclusion, if any of this was insufficiently clear: Man, fuck Ayn Rand.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
i like to imagine someone looming over a cowering student, spittle flying and eyes crazed, while delivering this rant…
March 11th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Just for kicks, I did a google search for "Fuck Ayn Rand" There is a delightful assortment of vitriol, though much of it is less eloquent than yours, Ed. I did learn something new: evidently, her "work" had a huge influence on the mighty Greenspan, which all of a sudden makes a lot of sense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?ei=5090&en=8fc42c2f2603a791&ex=1347508800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
March 11th, 2009 at 2:22 am
I read a book when I was 12. I am an expert on it. Listen to me try to sound clever. Fuck is the biggest word I know.
Aren't I a special snowflake.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Ah, this is an awesome post!! Seriously, there is no middle ground here, no point at which you can begin rationalizing with these people. I'm still amazed at the mainstream coverage (and adulation) this woman receives and it is a testament to the lack of intellectual integrity. But that's the thing about Objectivists, they're all talk but they'll never actually "go galt." They lack the integrity to do so.
Re: Greenspan, he did a write a famous letter to the editor defending a negative NYT review of Atlas Shrugged. Indeed, for the past 15 years or so, he was considered the primary spokesperson of objectivism and no one seemed to object. But after his failures as Fed Chairman and his admission that regulation was necessary, objectivists are trying their best to distance themselves from him. Again, goes back to the lack of integrity.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5353
March 11th, 2009 at 3:59 am
Foo, just in case your frustration at finding this instead of the Ayn Rand / Rush Limbaugh / Ann Coulter three-way slash fiction you were hoping for when you Googled "Fuck+Ayn+Rand" is what has lead to your breakdown in reading skills, I would suggest this:
Scroll Down.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Don't forget that a third of this book takes place in some sci-fi mountain hide out, complete with cloaking device that uses electricity generated by machines that suck that static charge out of the air. That definitely sounded like a good idea when I was 12. But now, I'd take that story any more seriously than any Star Trek episode. How's that for rational.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Oh and I don't think you can 'go galt' without and actual John Galt to pick and choose which people can be considered the 'productive ones' and be invited to the mountain retreat. Otherwise anyone can consider themselves as productive. It's just another form of Collectivisim, which like pouring watery thoughts into an Objectivists oily brain.
Who in this world would you put up as the next John Galt, or a woman with the tenaciousness of Dagny Taggart? John McCain and Sarah Palin? *Ba-ha-ha-ha!*
March 11th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ed, you are on a roll. Keep it going….and thanks.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I feel like I have to read Atlas Shrugged the way I watched Battlefield:Earth…with a bottle of wine and a pillow over my face.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I have a conservative acquaintance who, ever since the Obama-is-socialist thing started, has begged me to read Atlas Shrugged. It will, she says, explain everything. So I asked her to read The Jungle and/or The Grapes of Wrath. I thought they might balance each other out.
I have never understood the belief that she (and others) feel that people willingly choose not to work because, hey, welfare is just so much easier. Like somebody is giving up a 100K job in corporate America to live on 15K a year so they can sit at home and eat bon-bons.
@Foo – I couldn't tell if he was being snarky or not. Damn these interwebs and their lack of visual cues!
March 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am
"Ayn Rand taught me all I needed to know about love and sex and what women really want from a man."
-Ike Turner
March 11th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Funny how right wing movements rely on novels ( and bad novels at that). Rand's novel is on par with its intellectual ( ?) cousin, The Turner Diaries.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:32 am
The fact is, you liberals have it all backwards as usual about what is freedom and fascism and American. Ayn Rand is very relevent today, since we are being taxed by the unproductive, and we will throw teabag parties and go galt here in the heartland.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Teabag parties?
Sounds like something republicans can get into.
Ask Larry Craig.
Go Galt all you want. Like Ed wrote, there are millions ready to take your place.
Welcome to real world, kid. In capitalism, everybody is expendable…
March 11th, 2009 at 10:53 am
When I see the phrase "go galt," I get this irrepressible memory of the immortal opening sequence, "Go, Go, Go, Astro Boy!" Maybe it's the Glenn Reynolds connection.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Go ahead, Gary. Get ready to find out just how important and irreplaceable you really are. It's cute that you think this world can't get by without the assistant manager at the Lidz kiosk in the mall or whatever the hell you are.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Ooooh Noooooos. Gary Ruppert is Going Galt tooo and having teaparties in the Heartland? How WILL we survive disasters like that.
Seriously. These kind of threats are exactly the same as those kids who think they are misunderstood and contemplate suicide to show the world how Special they actually were and nobody recognized it.
These people need help.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Comrade x, you are correct and the "Go Galt" crowd seem to overlook a fundamental law of capitalism for the sake of ideological masturbation. Go Galt, indeed! I'm a business owner myself and I would be happy to help pick up the slack.
On the other hand, there is very little evidence that any of the "Go Galt" crowd owns a business, creates anything, or are in fact productive at all. So, never mind.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Aldo, when your competitors "go galt" and your business takes off, you can put in a new in-ground pool and think, "Wow, Objectivists paid for that pool."
You will finally understand how they claim to create wealth.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Another funny thing: all these Galts are feverishly against workers forming unions and demanding better pay, improving working conditions, benefits, and recognition of the work they perform.
Yet now these Galts are forming a union for themselves. And for what? Better pay, improving working conditions, benefits, and recognition of the work they perform.
Hypocrites
March 11th, 2009 at 11:48 am
A+
My favorite are the people who are going to upend their lives in order to be able to claim $249,999 instead of more, clearing not understanding what the tax code does or how it works.
I do like the imagery of mid-level managers, or IT small firms owners, day-dreaming that them not showing up to work would be the equivalent of Atlas dropping the world. It's a better daydream than realizing how utterly replaceable their jobs are.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Atlas Shrugged gets the McSweeney's treatment:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/20tucker.html
March 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Not sure if anyone has seen this, but thought i'd share since it's relevant:
http://www.portfolio.com/resources/insight-center/2009/02/25/Why-Do-CEOs-Still-Love-Ayn-Rand?PMID=alsoin/Atlas,-Still-Shrugged
March 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
This reminds me of my Ayn Rand narrow escape. At the age of 12 or 13, precociously bright, avid reader, low on social skills, I happened to pick up a paperback of "Fountainhead" at the library. (From the cover, I thought it might have been science fiction). Started reading it, and by page four or so, I'd come to several realizations:
This book is all about Howard Roark. Howard Roark is an a$$hole.
I do not wish to read a book about such a person.
I'm not saying I was an entirely pleasant guy as a teenager, but if I'd
read Fountainhead at that age, I would have gone on to Atlas Shrugged,
and would have become an utter and complete pillock for several
years. Whew, narrow escape. Instead, I read "Exterminator!" by
William S. Burroughs and became . . very strange.
Objectivism has always struck me as steroisoMarxism – it has the same
flaw of starting with some poorly-examined premises, and then applying
those premises ruthlessly to situations where they don't actually
work, then insisting that reality is flawed because it doesn't match
the theory. That, and the bizarre fetishizing of heavy industry (foundries!
trains! oil wells!) by someone who wrote fiction and philosophy for a
living.
Bonus cartoon link: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
March 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
A couple of definitions…A Libertarian is someone who read "Atlas Shrugged" and didn't get the joke. A conservative is someone who read the first 50 pages of "Atlas Shrugged," but had to quit reading because the plot was too complex, the characters too deep, and it wasn't available in the Classic Comics edition yet.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I call it 'Objectificationism', where every human being is merely an object for you to exploit. Randian Objectificationism means millions of starving Americans so that one rich Conservative can increase their profits by a couple dollars.
The Peanut Butter murders are a perfect example of Randian Objectificationism:
The company knew they were shipping a deadly product, but it would cost them their profits to correct it. This reduction of profits is exactly why conservatives hate regulations. The peanut butter manufacturer deserves a medal for intentionally killing Americans because they resisted those Communist inspired, evil regulations.
Up with Objectificationism, down with people!
March 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Damn, you Robert! I was going to post that Bob the Angry Flower comic. I love it.
"We're all gonna have to TILL the SOIL!" is one of my favorite lines.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
The objectivists I know fall into two categories. One went to college, realized other people mattered to them, and dropped it. The other type still to this day runs around insisting they're the world's Atlases.
My biggest problem with Ayn Rand's literature is that many I know who read it and stayed with it came to insist on their own genius, regardless of any actual merit. They feel they are visionaries who are just not yet appreciated, and all those who point out their work leaves room for improvement are merely jealous moochers. It empowers adolescent self-aggrandizement into a far later stage of life than people should hold such feelings.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Rand tried to pursue a relationship with Frank Lloyd Wright, but he rapidly figured out that she was full of shit. And Wright was not a guy to shoo women away, trust me.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Have to confess: I read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover (including every page of the goes-on-foever 'Your minds! Your stupid, stupid minds!' speech) a few years back. Even as a settled adult, fairly wise to the world, it . . . did things to my mind. Like a great black hole of suck, it distorted everything else I saw or read. It was a good couple weeks before the world sprang back to normal. Please note, I'm not saying it was _good_, but it did what she had wanted it to do. If I'd been hit by that brain-bomb at 17 or 18 – whoosh, I'd have been gone.
Atlas Shrugged is the Necronomicon of political fiction.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Reading all this post and the following comments, I've yet to see any real arguments for WHY Ayn Rand should be rejected. There are plenty of snide comments about Ayn Rand and Objectivists in general, but no commentary on the ideas, other then arbitrary insults with no explanations behind them.
And guess what? Ayn Rand already wrote about that tactic, calling it the argument from intimidation:
"There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea."
March 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
First of all, it's not terribly Objectivist to play the victim card. No one's "intimidating" you. You're completely free to hold your childish, self-aggrandizing set of beliefs.
Second, I did not make this post a point-by-point refutation of the specifics of Objectivist ideology (and remember, it IS an ideology, not a philosophy) for the same reason that I don't feel the need to do a point-by-point refutation of intellectual positions like Holocaust denial, Intelligent Design, and the existence of the Easter Bunny.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
This bit just makes me laugh, because objectivists and conservatives play this game all the time: Only collectivist dupes can fail to see the beauty of Objectivism. People who don't see Ayn Rand's genius are fools who envy Producers and want to punish them. Only terrorist sympathizers could disagree with GOP policies.
Ideologue, heal thyself.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
This may be the greatest post on ginandtacos, and I've been reading for years.
Also, fuck Ayn Rand.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Anybody played Bioshock the videogame? Super fun: it imagines life in Galt's mountain retreat, and how society would completely and viciously break down with no rules except the idolization of industrial progress. A hearty recommendation to any anti-objectivists and gamers out there.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Ham Bone, Iowa? Is that anywhere near Cabbageville, Pennsylvania?
March 12th, 2009 at 4:21 am
[...] March 12, 2009 · No Comments Read Ed's great takedown of Ayn Rand here. [...]
March 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Agreed, perhaps the best G&T I've ever read. "You know, when I turned 12" was nominee for best line, all the way until "in reality could be replaced by any literate college grad or, in many cases, an unusually motivated ape" came along.
I was passed this morning by a new Cadillac with a "CONSERVATIVE IN EXILE" bumper sticker. I couldn't help but notice that the driver appeared to be in his homeland. I know I shouldn't judge by appearance, but he certainly looked more like a puffy old white man from Ohio than a foreign national.
Love it, Ed.
B.F.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
yawn, wake me up when the garbage men decide to go Galt. That shit would be terrible, you know people who actually contribute to the betterment of society. I think we'll survive the loss of some hat boutiques and cigar bars, but have you ever seen a garbage strike? That's some third world nightmare fuel. So thank you garbage men for making our lives that much better!
March 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I just realized something. Someone already has "gone Galt:" Bernie Madoff
March 13th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
If the leeches who make up the financial elite of the country want to go Galt, I will pay for their tickets personally and send them to whatever island resort of their choice. Then turn it into a zoo and display to future generations the last remnants of the highest form of parasite known to exist.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
The obvious problem with this post is that you never once justify your position (well maybe a little in the sixth paragraph, but even then, hardly).
Your post is a seemingly endless sling of empty insults. Ignoring your critique of her writing skills (which is accurate but irrelevant), you call Rand's philosophy "sophomoric," but do not provide any evidence for why that is. Your example of John's constituent is incomplete at best (you ignore what the constituent will be doing instead of running the business, which is an essential part of the logic behind his decision).
I'm no objectivist, and there's plenty wrong with the philosophy (which, again, is why I'm not an objectivist), but you illuminate none of it. Anyone could've written this critique of Rand's philosophy (again, leaving aside the critique of her writing). All that differentiates it is the eloquence with which you wrote it.
On another note, I take issue with this:
"Politics is about solving problems, not moralizing."
Politics is about solving problems, yes, but it must always do so within the realm of morality (though what morality that is will likely always remain in contention). To deny that is to deny the existence of morality itself.
"Life is about living in society, not in one’s own head."
Life is about living long enough to reproduce, we just happen to do it within the framework of society (which is why we have morals in the first place).
March 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
It's pretty easy to beat up dead women, sin't it? Especially when neither you nor your pals like what she had to say.
What you miss about real-life "going Galt" is that it is neither a protest nor a strike (working title for Atlas Shrugged was The Strike). It is simply a response to financial disincentive: the relationship between gross and net income flattens out — and does so in a somewhat stepwise fashion. The rational response is to earn less, live more simply and concentrate on essentials. To cut back — which means using fewer goods and services, meaning the folks who supply them will make less money, too. Progressive income taxes trickle down.
But hey, keep dreamin'. And keep pickin' on dead writers. You're soooo brave!
March 14th, 2009 at 12:04 am
And keep pickin’ on dead writers. You’re soooo brave!
Does this mean rightwingers should lay off Karl Marx?
March 14th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
The modern day conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest moral exercises, that is, the superior moral justification for selfishness. – John Kenneth Galbraith
Great post, Ed. And fuck Ayn Rand and the "galtards" while we're on the subject.
Don't any of you Randian fetishists let the door hit you on the ass when you check out of society in protest and make God damn fucking sure you don't use ANY income or usage tax funded services from this point forward such as: Roads, sidewalks, highways, bridges, street and highway lighting, the NOAA weather services, police, fire, and paramedical services, the US military, the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA disaster relief, public buildings, the local, state and federal court systems, Civil Engineering projects such as flood control, dams, clean water supplies, EPA regulated clean air and water, FDA regulated and inspected medicine and food supplies, Centers for Disease Control monitoring of diseases and pandemics, goods, products or services that were developed as a result of NASA, US Military, or taxpayer funded research conducted at Universities, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Diplomatic Corps, The Justice Department or any other Cabinet level federal agency, the school systems, public transit, the quasi-public railroads, the laws which keep me from killing you egotistical, selfish pricks in your sleep or anything else.
Nope, you morons are "producers" so that's just what you'll be doing every time you step off your property. Producing cash in hand to pay for every one of the things I just mentioned as you use them. And we don't take credit cards or checks.
From one of the "producers". A small business owner that doesn't mind paying a few bucks more in taxes to see the US middle class survive and prosper after being hosed by the greedy US business elites and politicians. Because the USA is better than anywhere else I care to live. Fucking douche nozzles.
Again, Ed, good post.
/rant over
March 15th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
"Don’t any of you Randian fetishists let the door hit you on the ass when you check out of society in protest and make God damn fucking sure you don’t use ANY income or usage tax funded services from this point forward such as: *snip*"
Straw man. A Randian would, obviously, prefer to see those privately funded, but so long as the government is doing them, the private sector won't, and the idea that they should insanely reduce their quality of life because the gov't is (in their view) immoral is ridiculous.
"the laws which keep me from killing you egotistical, selfish pricks in your sleep"
Do you even understand Rand's philosophy? At all? "The laws which keep me from killing you" are one of the few reasons gov't exists at all under Rand.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Also, for those who hate selfishness for its own sake, please tell me why you haven't killed yourself so that other people can use your organs. If you don't value yourself over others, you would do this. And, if you do value yourself over others (as you should), you are selfish.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
A moral justification for selfishness is one of the oldest philosophical exercises in human history.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
While I agree almost entirely, I can tell you as a former small business owner, taxes and even seemingly small changes can have an impact. We have to be careful, but I absolutely believe that the balance of resources between the private and public sectors has been way out of whack for at least the last 8 years. It's time to restore balance, and YES, GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE!
March 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
The older I get the more I realize the only sane path is this: Socialism for what we need, Capitalism for what we want. Democracy to decide which is which.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
She had a brain, thought for herself, taught others to do the same — it's nice to see you guys doing the same.
April 27th, 2009 at 12:47 am
It's always great to associate people with philosophies and then say that person sucks, therefore the philosophy does. How's that for some intellectual honesty.
April 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Oh my goodness yes. This was lovely. All the stuff I've been saying for years, and which needs to be said now more than ever, now that Ms. Rand is zooming up the bestseller lists again. An acquaintance—not even a right-winger, just an idiot–posted some admiring crap about Atlas Shrugged, that book for people who don't read books, on Facebook today, so I went straight to Teh Google searching for "Ayn Rand Takedown." This was near the top, you'll be happy to know. And I'm damned well gonna send some traffic this way. Cheers, mate!
May 19th, 2009 at 1:06 am
I got here by searching "Fuck Ayn Rand!" And after this I feel SO GOOOOOD.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:12 am
[...] note: Straight from the horse's mouth, Rand's philosophy sounds every bit as dumb as it sounds coming from her followers. Amazing. You'd think it would sound slightly less [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am
It's been a while since this post, but if I'm here reading it, someone else might as well. So, I'll point out that this is entirely fucking wrong.
The relationship between gross and net income, under a graduated progressive income tax–like the income tax here in the States, ignoring all other taxes, as is popular in these situations–is monotonically increasing. The slope of the line changes at the boundaries between tax brackets; at zero dollars, the slope is 1; at the highest tax bracket (35% this year), it's 0.65. It is never flat, or even close to flat, and it certainly doesn't have the perverse incentives you actually see with the earned income tax credit, where individuals actually do face the problem you describe.
Of course, tax refunds and credits are bad when they're applied to poor people.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Well said!
Thank you…
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Oops. Just saw my compliment to the author of the rant posted under a criticism, making it appear as if I was agreeing with the critical idiot who doesn't understand that the only sane answer to "objectivism" (sometimes known as the Cult of the Selfish or the Church of the Greedy) is exactly what the writer of the rant so eloquently phrased for us all:
Fuck Ayn Rand.
August 30th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Margaret Thatcher famously said, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." The obvious retort to that is, "The problem with capitalism is sooner or later you run out of other people's labor." That's what's happening nowadays as even the countries we offshore work to are starting to look for places to offshore _their_ work to. Just thought I'd mention that.
Oh, and yeah – FUCK Ayn Rand.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Just watched the PBS Frontline presentation on how Greenspan, Rubin and Larry Summers did a beat down on Brooksley Born, the CFTC Director who predicted the economic crisis starting with the unregulated derivatives market. Last year, Greenspan finally he admitted that his Ayn Rand influenced economic policies were wrong. Psalm 146:3, 4 applies to Ayn Rand and Greenspan and every single one of those who fall in love with their own ideas.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Thank you for the post, and thanks to Fulcanelli for a succinct description of why Rand, can indeed, go fuck herself.
What I find bizarre are the multitude of Christian conservatives subscribing to Rand's ideologies. Not only was Rand an advocate for Atheism, "rational egoism" seems to be what LaVey used as the basis for his brand of Satanism…just throw in some theatrics and references to dark lords. She's all about the Me, damn everyone else…definitely not the teachings of Jesus.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
One of my biggest beefs with this novel concerns its method of argumentation. She wants to illustrate her idea that anything other than unfettered, egoistic capitalism will inevitably collapse into self-destructive totalitarianism. And how does she show this in her story? By _stipulating_ that the Randians are all rational, honest, brave, strong and creative, and that everyone else is stupid, corrupt, vacillating, weak and parasitic! (And they all scream stupid things like, "It's not my fault!" or "I haven't said that!" or "You can't blame me!") But as a much greater philosopher, John Stuart Mill, pointed out,
November 15th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
ahem: I continue:
But as a much greater philosopher, John Stuart Mill, pointed out,
November 15th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
November 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Yeah, but what about all those great Rush Lyrics!
November 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I don't know much about political philosophy or Ayn Rand (except that her views are bad).
But I do know that you're attacking capitalist ideals via Randian 'objectivism'. And that is not only uncharitable but also pretty stupid, since Rand does a terrible job of stating capitalist notions in their ideal form. You should have gone more middle-of-the-road with this one, or at least have titled the piece 'Fuck Robert Nozick' or something.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
"Grow up or fuck off. Those are your two options"????
Your piece does not make any serious points and is calculated to offend anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I guess you are just trying to rally people to join you in a hate – in. I get the feeling you would like to kill the objectivists or have them jailed or censored. Are those supposed to be Nazis in the graphic? They are a good symbol of your own approach to disagreement. Maybe you are just crying out for attention, empathy, or a diaper change.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Thank you for finally putting that bitch in her place. This will be printed and framed as well as kept on hand in a digital form just to throw in the face of Ayn Rand lovers.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Yep, they're Nazis. You're bright. Your analysis of my argument carries ample weight.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
@Herself:
"And keep pickin’ on dead writers. You’re soooo brave!"
So… we shouldn't pick on dead authors? Like when Ayn Rand said, and I quote "Kant is the most evil man in mankind’s history." (The Objectivist) Kinda like that? Hm… So… that's a bad thing…?
Oh, no. Definitely no gaping logical hole in THAT argument.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I've got your back, Kant.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
The amount if ignorance you show for Ayn Rand and her philosophy is astounding, most of your arguments against her philosophy resort to ad hominems, and the fact she writes longer pieces of literature.
The fact that you never directly quote Rand is quite telling, because you don't know what she states or writes.
I'd argue in fact that you're ignorant ranting is the equievalent of what Rand wrote on Kant, nothing but sensational, hyperbolic, auto-fellatio.
November 28th, 2009 at 5:55 am
I was real into Objectivism, then I turned 18 and got a job. Now I'm 24 and I probably won't recover until I'm in my 40s, if ever. Thanks to Objectivism, I cannot get a girlfriend or even talk to a girl. I don't even know how to talk to ANYBODY now, that's how bad I was infected by Queen Ayn's tripe. I SERIOUSLY hate Ayn Rand and would seriously consider her far more evil than Adolf Hitler. Her "work" created entire generations of people who are in turn directly responsible for the deaths of millions EACH YEAR. Adolf could only dream of racking up such a death count. Now the first question I ask to someone when I meet them is "In one word, describe your opinion of Ayn Rand." If their response is negative or "who/what's that?" then I might be able to be friends with them. But if they respond in any positive way, I RUN (not walk) as far away from that person as I can.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Not that any of you lying-ass progressives are interested in the truth, but first of all, Greenspan was about as much of an objectivist as Hitler was a libertarian. But since you solipsists like to baste in your own infantile pablum, regurgitating all the vomit that passes for knowledge in the hot-house consortiums of marxist tripe we now jokingly refer to as "universities," why don't you explain to me how subjectivism works in practice? Do men simply dream up this reality called life that we are supposedly both engaging in right now, in the extremely loose sense, or are some stimuli external to your mind required in order for us men, again loosely speaking, to have thoughts?
This is a crucial question to get right, that is, the ontological question, because if you side with Marx we are all puppets of our material environments. This begs the question, what the hell makes you so smart? If you think that reality is quite subjective and made up, again, the point is moot, because I can say dragons and unicorns rule the universe and it is impossible for you to argue with me. That leaves us with another option, which is that there is an objective reality, and our minds are capable of receiving it and more or less interpreting it (some people obviously better than others; usually varying by how long one has been removed from the real world and multiplied by how long one has been indoctrinated in the academic panopticon).
If you can't mentally pack your bags and get this fundamental question right, then why should we listen to you opine on anything at all, let alone if you think Rand's literature is swell or horrid? If there are no objective standards for ethics, well, then let's all have at it, burning civilization in an orgy of nihilistic delusions while praying to our statist masters in the vain hope that the marxist phoenix to rise form the ashes.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Not that any of you lying-ass progressives are interested in the truth, but first of all, Greenspan was about as much of an objectivist as Hitler was a libertarian. But since you solipsists like to baste in your own infantile pablum, regurgitating all the vomit that passes for knowledge in the hot-house consortiums of marxist tripe we now jokingly refer to as "universities," why don't you explain to me how subjectivism works in practice? Do men simply dream up this reality called life that we are supposedly both engaging in right now, in the extremely loose sense, or are some stimuli external to your mind required in order for us men, again loosely speaking, to have thoughts?
This is a crucial question to get right, that is, the ontological question, because if you side with Marx we are all puppets of our material environments. This begs the question, what the hell makes you so smart? If you think that reality is quite subjective and made up, again, the point is moot, because I can say dragons and unicorns rule the universe and it is impossible for you to argue with me. That leaves us with another option, which is that there is an objective reality, and our minds are capable of receiving it and more or less interpreting it (some people obviously better than others; usually varying by how long one has been removed from the real world and multiplied by how long one has been indoctrinated in the academic panopticon).
If you can't mentally pack your bags and get this fundamental question right, then why should we listen to you opine on anything at all, let alone if you think Rand's literature is swell or horrid? If there are no objective standards for ethics, well, then let's all have at it, burning civilization in an orgy of nihilistic delusions while praying to our statist masters in the vain hope that the marxist phoenix will rise from the ashes.
[edited for typos]
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Reasonsjester, first, I can tell your political affiliation because you immediately start your post with vitriol and slander. Attack the person, not the idea. Also – a total rejection of Rand is not necessarily a total rejection of the concept of 'objectivity', or even 'collectivism' just the way she defines it. I believe that our world turns mostly on the basis of self interest, but that's not close to the whole story, and our world would not turn were it the only story. So the basis of your position i.e. 'to deny Ayn Ran is to deny objectivity and liberals are therefore retarded and I am angry and need to get laid' is debunked.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Oh – and by the way – you can't be Christian and support Ayn Rand. No way. She is the philosophical anti-Christ.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:49 am
i found this by searching for fuck ayn rand as well, and i am so glad.
dear detractors:
1: as a philosophical system, objectivism is a joke. There are plenty of good critiques of it online, and this is not meant to be one of them. it's an ideology that cannot even stand up under the weight of it's own poor arguments. but this article was not a philosophical critique, nor should it have been.
2. look at the consequences of ayn rand's philosophy….do you know how many murders and horrors have been committed by such practicers of rational egoism? what about ayn rand's own life? she was miserable person with contempt for everyone, fucked over everyone close to her, and died a wretched shit of a person as she lived. she's like the female modern marquis de sade mine minus literary talent
3. and sammy d: the person sucked, she created a philosophy, which was poor and also sucked, and now most anyone who can think hates her. connection made.
4. reasonjester: benefits of subjectivism: all of art. you don't understand subjectivity. in the slightest. read foucalt, kierkegaard, and nietzsche, then go fuck yourself. those who highlight the godliness of mans reason are sad and desperately trying to make men gods in a world where theyre animals, but subjectivity attempts to make men fully what they should be.
5. fuck ayn rand.
thank you for this article
January 26th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Funny how France was all collusive to the Turrorists; yet, having lived there, she is now a somehow required reading stalwart of the morons that now cling to the crap she spewed. deGaulle of it all…
February 24th, 2010 at 3:50 am
I distrust anybody who says that their political party (ideology) is smarter than another. If liberals are so intelligent why do we/they keep getting bitch slapped politically? Despite how unpopular Bush/republicans became, the Dems are just handing power back to them.
oh, and fuck this rant. (see what I did there. I used the word "fuck" so people wouldn't realize I haven't made any valid points.)
February 24th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
But why would anyone want to leave Ham Bone in the first place?
February 24th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
SERIOUSLY, FUCK THIS RANT
You idea that being an libertarian is due to peoples lack of care for others and is bred of out pure selfishness is fabricated and unwarranted. If anything the liberals who are so self indulgent they think the government should take care of people because they know they will never go out of their way to, is much closer to reality. Or the republicans who try to take away personal freedoms just because it fits on their moral schedule, that seems a bit more selfish than a person who believes in individual responsibility both financially and socially.
Libertarianism is not saying fuck everybody else I just want to take care of myself. Look how much money Americans have donated to Haiti over the past month. People do have care for each other and are willing to lend a hand especially in times of need. The problem with government is that it is extremely inefficient, it takes away incentives for people to act in their own best interest, and they limit personal freedoms.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:39 am
This planet has – or rather had – a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much all of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:01 am
The main protagonist of the fountain head rapes a stranger and the protagonist of atlas shrugged kills a stranger. I think Ayn Rand wrote some interesting literature but her philosophy is flawed as fuck, where are the ethics! plus her philosophy was nothing original and she was a cold hearted idiot bitch.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:00 am
The weird thing about objectivism, at least as Rand put it, it requires either magic or such an extreme degree of mechanization that they can do without large chunks of the population. If memory serves they even had to sabotage the world around them in terms of damaging transport and infrastructure to ensure the downfall of the civilization they opposed.
That and it's the 'masses' that could really doom us if they 'Go Galt' if the people who grow and produce food, collect garbage, and maintain machines all did civilization would start having trouble damn quick.
February 25th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
great post. it's ridiculous to hear people in the comments defend the book's relevancy by saying that they're being unfairly taxed by the unproductive. sadly the truth is that we're all unproductive in america, we don't do shit, we make our money off of services and derivatives, we don't produce we don't export we don't do a damn thing, so to say you're being taxed by the unproductive is horse shit, yes all of that shit needs to be fixed, but guess what? that isn't going to be fixed by individuals or the free market, it's got to be done by the government.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:22 am
I feel like Ayn Rand just wanted to justify the fact that she understood her role in the world as inherently unproductive; yet, she wanted to continue down this unproductive path, and thus wrote shitty books as a means to that end. Hypocritical at best, douchebaggy at its worst. It's funny when people criticize academia for being neo-Marxist institutions churning out brainless workers- Ayn Rand got a degree, no? Or was she just special enough to get past all their mental gymnastics? Btw, I like Daniel Quinn's philideology more, as my subjective auto-fellatio. We'll never get out of this life alive, anyways. Let's just play nice.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:12 am
Your biggest mistake was thinking that true objectivist values are the same at all to modern neo-conservatives, and while some ideals are said to be shared the truth is that no political party in the mainstream even comes close to holding the values that rand outlines. Now seriously if you had written and actual structured argument with researched points id be inclined to at least respect you but what you have done is exactly what you condemn: buy in to immature "college" ideals. You think that you have to buy into one of the major parties and do everything that they ask but seriously its like choosing between the Nazis and the Soviets, no option is good. Both parties seek control over the people, one just wants your mind a little more and the other wants your money a little more. Now im not going to pretend that rand doesnt want control over my mind at least in part, but the purpose is that she has seen what has happen to political parties when they decide to compromise: they get diluted ideals and strat trying to ACTUALLY control people, rand wants no more then your full commitment or none of it, if you dont like her philosophy fine, but get the fuck out of the way. In closing, re-look and try to be honest rather then a left wing fanboy. btw im willing to respond to other arguments if an educated debate is in order.
February 28th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
You guys are bunch of knuckleheads. Last I checked this book is sold under fiction or classics along with Crime and Punishment, Don Quixote, Brave New World, 1984, and even John Grisham books, etc.
There are so many farfetched actions and thoughts in this book and Rands thinking, but at the same time there is a certain amount of genius that speaks to many generations. People who are going to take this philosophy and book 100% literally (or any book in print for that matter) and allow this to be their religion are as warped as people who take the Bible 100% literally and follow it as such.
People need to learn to take kernels of truth from different things and form their own beliefs and values and ideas.
Lighten the fuck up.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
The funniest thing about "Going Galt" is that you need Producers for this world to survive. But in Reality you need the workers..
That is why I do not follow her ideology.
March 30th, 2010 at 11:47 am
It's sad to see that your intellect dwindled from the age of twelve onwards.
April 3rd, 2010 at 12:44 am
The problem is always regulation. Economy doing bad? Pull regulations. Economy doing bad because those regulations proved to be the only thing keeping people from doing something stupid? It's because you still had too many regulations. But what are basing this on? A system we've never had will be perfect, even though attempts to reach it just cause trouble? That the same can be said for Communism just makes it funnier.
Objectivism has no basis in reality. Without regulation, companies screw their workers over:
Triangle shirtwaist company. Their factory doors were kept locked during operating hours to make sure workers didn't sneak off and hurt productivity. When a fire in the factory broke out, 146 workers died. People cried out- and the government responded- to make sure it didn't happen again.
The early Twentieth Century was full of scandals and reforms. We've seen how unregulated capitalism works; to put it simply, it sucked. New Zealand tried to adopt Libertarian economic ideals; it was a disaster.
Some said we're all selfish because we aren't killing ourselves to donate our organs. That's stupid; just because we value others doesn't mean we don't value ourselves. It's also not hard to make the argument you can do a lot more good for others by staying alive with a combination of charity, volunteer work, or a job aiding with any of the myriad problems people face. You can donate your organs when you're dead; I probably will.
April 9th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Soon we will see the day when all Americans will be equal. Equal pay=equal work
the government will tell us what to think and will make sure that our money is used for something worthwhile. I am tired of these conservatives wanting to make more than others that may not have the same opportunity. The main theme of Atlas Shrugged is that we can not trust the government. That is ridiculous. The government has never let us down and would never take advantage of the people.
April 11th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Arguing with objectivists is alot like arguing with someone who doesn't speak your language. Their concept of freedom, equality, capitalism and selfishness are so radically different from what the words mean to anyone else that you might as well be talking to a babbling child. The entire theory of objectivism seems based in bad circular logic. "If I am not free to be freer than everyone else how am I free?"
April 15th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Thank you for this. It's like reading the thoughts that go through my head when I meet one of these Rand people.
April 16th, 2010 at 12:58 am
Whoever posted the comment as Arthur Dent: You are my hero. Clearly the answer to this, as all life's issues, is 42.
By and large, Ayn Rand is a god damned retard. It baffles me that such horrible writing exists in widely published and read forms, but it is difficult to become published. The only things I can think of to use her god awful attempts at literature for are:
spider crushing
lining a cat pan
chew toy for the dog
bludgeoning Ayn Rand fans
identifying complete assholes.
April 18th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
And yet, here we are discussing her. She's accomplished much more than you and in 50 years, no one will even give a shit about you. Because, like it or not, you are ranting about a woman that wrote one of the most influential books in American literature. What have you done? Nothing because you are a typical liberal armchair philosopher.
April 19th, 2010 at 12:06 am
People still talk about Stalin too.
Your logic: fucking flawless.
April 20th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Rand's philosophy is not perfect, I'll give you that. But, her books are a lot more intelligent that your baseless ranting.
Rand's philosophy does not work for quite a few reasons. I think the major reason is that the producers in the US are dirt bags. They are very different than the angel-like characters with exaggerated intelligence that Rand uses to get her philosophy across. There are billions of people in the world, anybody is replaceable.
Overall, I think blind Rand haters get the wrong message from her novels. It isn't that you are the most important person ever and should go on strike to show that. It is that you should live a lifestyle doing what you want. Life is about you. If your into being selfish then be selfish. If your into giving away everything you own, have at it. Above all, think for yourself. Don't be a brainless idiot who hasn't figured out what they want or know (i.e. the author of the article). Read information, gather evidence, and understand.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I love to steal. I stole from my family and ruined them. I am so happy to be a thief and liar and betrayer. Fuck Ayn Rand whoever the hell it is.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I think you should have a little more faith in college students – not all of them have Mommy and Daddy to pay for everything, and not all of them believe every crock of shit placed in their hands.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:57 am
you sir are a fucking moron
May 10th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I like your blog, it's clever and I can see myself agreeing with your point that Atlas Shrugged was a dog shit novel devoid of anything entertaining and is generally the bible for faux libertarian college students. Rand ignores the importance of the consumer in the false dichotomy of consumer/producer (if you have a job, you're both), and as you said, the book reads like a lecture from your grandmother. Good calls on both accounts.
The big HOWEVER is that while yes it is important to recognize the hardships of others, big daddy government's attempts to "level the playing field" have pretty much universally failed either by bankrupting treasuries or allowing for the creation of autocratic government. I could also make an efficiency argument concerning private vs. public charity, but I don't need to, since the Red Cross did it for me after Katrina.
You're right, most people aren't lazy and would rather work than accept a handout. Not everyone on unemployment is a deadbeat at conservatives would have us believe, some just got shafted by a company that was run poorly. The issue isn't the moral fiber of those receiving state benefits, but the long term sustainability of a society based on such benefits (How's Greece doing?).
Rand was an idiot true enough, but don't lump everybody with libertarian inclinations into the same steaming shit pile as people like Rand, Rothbard, and Russo (alliteration not intentional, crazies just have similar names). From a practical, real-world perspective, you can only care so much about others. You'll find most of us to be pretty reasonable, and if you'll look back to the 1990's, you'll see our ideas worked.
May 31st, 2010 at 2:30 am
It seems odd that you would condemn a man who circumstances you are completely unaware of and is only tenuously connected to the "Rand is bullshit" subject at hand. I am referring, of course, to the "friggin' idiot" who would close his business down because of a 10% increase in taxes. You relate this 10% loss to the 100% loss he faces if he shuts down. The problem in your thinking here is that you suppose that being able to keep 90% is a fine deal (at it's face value, this position ignores the other taxes and regulatory expenses he must pay).
More fundamentally, how do you know he isn't just scraping by? Suppose his business would have survived without the increased taxes but this man would have a low income to take home for himself. Even single percentage point changes threaten his ability to continue in his current position of being a productive member of society. Saying that he is does not produce enough output to be a "producer" plainly ignores the function and reality of producers in society. I direct you to Carl Menger and Eugene Bom-Bawerk who discuss at length the structure of production and the role of entrepreneurs and businessmen in society.
As I briefly skim back over the article, I fail to see any substantial rebuttal of Rand, her philosophy, or her work (full-disclosure: I am neither an Objectivist, nor do I support Rand as a literary figure as I've read zero of her novels). Insulting a person's followers (or people who may be her followers – the jury is out on the "retard") does nothing to illustrate the flaws in the thinking of the person being followed. I understand that you goal here is not to refute Rand, but to say "Fuck you, Rand." You are doing nothing but leading people further astray from rational argument.
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 am
@Brent: If he's "barely scraping by" in his business, his taxes won't go up.
Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism, are workable systems. The systems that do work are invariably some blend of both. The question is not whether to blend them, but rather, in what sort of mix.
June 19th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
It's funny that you so accurate characterize the modern "objectivist" because that's pretty much Rand's life in a nutshell. She immigrated to the United States all butthurt that no one in the USSR liked her shitty screenplays and made a career for herself with her shitty philosophy.
This philosophy is based on the delusion that it was socialism's effort to hinder the great minds of society that held her back, rather than the fact that she just sucked. That's it in summary, the whole kit and kaboodle, and I think you did a pretty good of actually making a rational argument because the whole basis of the ideology is "I am a special little snowflake and no one appreciates me, boo hoo hoo".
July 24th, 2010 at 12:49 am
@The people who say that we should not take the book so seriously
She pushes her ideology in your face throughout the book and promoted it as a philosophy throughout her life; if she has presented her ideas as a philosophy then they should be critiqued as such.
I'm almost done the reading book, rather struggling through it, and got so sick of her writing that I googled "fuck ayn rand" just to hear some viewpoints and let off steam.
@Paul Pott who said that "you are just trying to rally people to join you in a hate
July 24th, 2010 at 12:50 am
Here is what I hate about her writing:
The book is way too repetitive. She repeats her goddamn philosophy so many times in her explanation of people's feelings or thoughts.
The dialog between characters isn't really dialog; granted they say hello and goodbye and acknowledging that the other is speaking, but each person always ends up just making a speech. They don't really respond to each other. This whole fucking book is a speech.
The characters are so stupid and unrealistic sometimes it's like a horror movie. Specifically, I'm talking about all the 'socialists' like James Taggart; when an argument is presented to them and they are asked a direct question they never answer it. Granted, they're politicians, but it continues throughout the book and just ends up drawing out the already repetitive story so that the protagonists CAN MAKE MORE FUCKING SPEECHES.
I haven't thought deeply about her ideology but my biggest problem with it is that it's not very….objective. She completely ignores the existence of GREED. Ok Ayn, you seem to hate being guided by morality and yet you assume that these producers all have perfect morals? She's like the goddamn politicians who don't respond to logical arguments laid out to them….don't you see this flaw in your goddamn objectivism?
To sum it up: the writing is repetitive and long-winded….the characters stubbornly resist development and her philosophy is full of holes.
I think this book is a product of it's time. It was written and released in 1957; a time of a huge boom in America where the future looked bright and glorious. All sorts of shit was being manufactured with a new technology called "plastic" and companies were prospering from all the consumerism. IMO, she and everyone else got caught up in this fervor.
I truly believe she truly believed this crap. She was a poor young Russian girl who was stunted by communism then came to America and had a prosperous life in Hollywood. Of course she buys this bullshit. This book is her ode to the America of that time: it's her love-note describing how she rode the capitalist cock all the way to the bank.
Fuck Ayn Rand.
July 26th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Conservatism means having no heart or brain.
August 1st, 2010 at 8:33 pm
try looking at the true definition of communism next time u feel like complaining to ur hs teacher abt ayn rand. when your ready to stand down from your soapbox and grow a vocabulary then you may complain. otherwise, keep your uneducated, groundless, comments in your tiny insignificant brain.
August 28th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Most of you just don't understand what Rand was saying. To heap vitriol on Rand like this just looks plain weird to be frank with you. What exactly do you hate about her? Your foaming at the mouth seems to get in the way of an intelligent, articulate critique. Rand's main political principle was peaceful coexistence. She argued that no-one, including the government, has the right to initiate physical force against others. Do you disagree with her metaphysics – reality exists independent of man?. Or her epistemology – reason is our means of knowledge? Or her ethics – each person is an end in themselves and the purpose of life is to live the best life possible and be happy (this is what she means by her provocative use of the word selfish)? Or her politics – live and let live, the non initiation of force principle so that each person may live the life they choose so long as they don't interfere with the right of others to do the same?
Now what in all of this do you hate? Consider the opposite views : reality does not exist, mystical revelation or intuition is our means of knowledge, each person has no right to their own life but are the means to the ends of others (monarch, state, race, class, tribe, etc), might makes right in politics with different groups vying to dominate others by force.
Seriously guys, be honest with yourselves…your collectivism has had reign for most of man's history and it was a disaster. The 20th century is stained with the collectivism of communism, fascism, ethnic cleansing and racism.
Civilisation is the eliimination of physical force from human relationships…creating a peaceful coexistence is the optimal politics. Each person can flourish to the best of their ability and desire. No one should have the right to initiate force against another person.
The left have given up articulating their views because no-one would support them if they fully understood what they rest upon. In the late 19th century and into the 20th century the leftists were armed with the theories of Plato, Hegel and Marx and they truly believed in them. No-one can surely believe these things now…dialectic materialism? You would be laughed at if you tried to argue for Hegel's Absolute oneness, or that economic class determines thinking, or the labour theory of value – when we so obviously live in a high tech world where reason is clearly the source of all value. Leftists are rather like the religionists, still clinging to a false theory of the world and doing eveything they can to avoid explaining the finer details in case people discover what nonsense they are selling.
Which explains why the only weapons leftists use these days are sarcasm, ridicule, ad hominem. Do you really think that you can propogate your views with such pitiful approaches?
Accept that you are on the anti-life, anti-man side of the argument (which perhaps some of you do) and either change sides or crawl under a rock. There is no need for you to try and destroy everyone else with your nihilistic hatred.
Deep down, you hate Rand because she shined a light on your true nature and pulled away all the camouflage you had erected to hide the self loathing in side. She named and shamed you and that is why you hate her.
And by the way, you laugh at her characterisations of leftists but your comments read straight out of the novels.
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Atlas Speaks:
“I’ve a message to give to Ayn Rand:
See, the view is quite clear where I stand,
And the worthy elite
That you find so complete
Have not once come to give me a hand.
“As I carried this world on my shoulder,
Growing woefully weary, and older,
I have shrugged when I could
But it did me no good
For the thieves at the top just got bolder.
“No, the burden I’ve borne through the ages
Has paid me but miserable wages,
While the egoists take
So much more than they make,
Yet you give them my name in your pages.
“If you look with clear eyes at my tale,
And for once let your own ego pale,
From my feet to my hands
Here a laborer stands,
And without me, this great world would fail.”
LDavis©2010