Atlas Shrugged: Why is this so bad?

Shizumaru

Alright D&D'ers, This is an Atlas Shrugged thread. This is inspired originally by this thread:

http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=102182

In which, I stated that Atlas is a good book, and its probably a good idea to read it.. A few posters came in the thread and disagreed, which is cool.. but didn't say why, and thats probably better to keep it out of that thread.. so here is this one...

This won't be a particularly amazing OP, so bear with that. I'm more interested in having a dialogue as to why some feel its a 'bad' or terrible book. I admittedly say, that I don't agree with everything that Rand states, but I do think there is some good value in some of the things she preaches. Granted, Atlas is indeed a very polarizing book depending on your outlying belief system and world-view.

That all said, I want to keep this civil with no flaming or anything. I'm intellectually curious what people think about it, as I don't have many people within my own social circle who have in fact read it.. It is a doozy at 1k+ pages...

I originally got the book out of the recommendation of several business speakers/entrepreneurs who I've heard speak both live at seminars as well as cd's and these were all people I greatly admire. Not that that really has much to do with anything, but the book has been regarded highly amongst business owners, business professionals and entrepreneurs..

In general I'll state that its obviously a good idea to have read the book, and at least have a basic idea of Rand's Objectivist philosophy..

Heres a wiki just in case however....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged

I'll add more to the OP if people see a need for it, or it that it could add to the thread, but for now its probably enough to get some degree of discussion going..

Evil Multifarious

atlas shrugged is terrible because objectivism is terrible

because it is a way for selfish people to justify being selfish

and it came to be because Rand grew up in a horrible place and came to what she saw as a capitalist paradise in comparison, which she basically came to worship

durandal4532

It never really grabbed me. Silly premise.

Scalfin

The guards didn't know how to swing a baseball bat because they didn't believe in the free market enough.

rational vash

When there is no corporate regulation bad shit happens. You can talk about how consumers will switch to a different product if they find out their current one is immoral, but history has shown that isn't the case. The myth of the rational consumer is just that; a myth.

Also, imagine the police department, fire department, military, and FDA run by private corporations.

VeritasVR

Quick, someone post Bob the Angry Flower again and find the link to the made-up "second book".

Elki

Haven't read it. I was thinking about it but somebody told me Fountainhead was a better, shorter sampling of Rand's fiction, so I read that. It was pretty awful.

wallaka

It's terribly written, and the premise and philosophy is also terrible. That's why people here don't like it.

Elki

Nobody post the flower. We've all seen the flower.

Khavall

Play Bioshock for a good rebuttal to Atlas Shrugged. Now imagine instead of a little fictional city that happened everywhere.

OptimusZed

Because its premise is more outlandish than Lord of the Rings, and it's vastly less entertaining.

Shizumaru

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

atlas shrugged is terrible because objectivism is terrible

because it is a way for selfish people to justify being selfish

and it came to be because Rand grew up in a horrible place and came to what she saw as a capitalist paradise in comparison, which she basically came to worship

I think people sometimes misconstrue 'selfishness' with 'rational self-interest' as the two are quite different.. There really wasn't a time where it was stated that you should be 'selfish' at the cost and/or potential burden of others so that you can pursue your own personal and self-fulfilling desires. It had more to do with valuing yourself and what you are capable as man, and that the pursuit of your own rational self-interest/happiness was your highest moral value.

I do however understand, and agree that growing up in a communistic country and immigrating to a capitalist nation would largely skew her beliefs. That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country. However, I will say that I don't agree with Rand in the idea of Laissez-faire capitalism as it does need to be regulated. Rand also didn't believe in patents and copyright law either, which I don't agree with.

themightypuck

Two different questions. What do you think about Atlas Shrugged as a novel and what do you think about objectivism? I assume this thread is more about the latter than the former. I don't really like objectivism because I refuse to submit to another's philosophy.

VeritasVR

VeritasVR wrote: »

the link to the made-up "second book".

Nevermind. Found it.

Elki wrote: »

Nobody post the flower. We've all seen the flower.

Apparently this guy hasn't. Or has, and didn't understand.

OptimusZed

Shizumaru wrote: »

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

This country was founded as a Socialist Republican Democracy.

Hexmage-PA

rational vash wrote: »

When there is no corporate regulation bad shit happens. You can talk about how consumers will switch to a different product if they find out their current one is immoral, but history has shown that isn't the case. The myth of the rational consumer is just that; a myth.

It doesn't help that our media is run by corporations who have a vested interest in preventing the general public from learning the immoral actions they've undertaken.

Captain Carrot

Shizumaru wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

atlas shrugged is terrible because objectivism is terrible

because it is a way for selfish people to justify being selfish

and it came to be because Rand grew up in a horrible place and came to what she saw as a capitalist paradise in comparison, which she basically came to worship

I think people sometimes misconstrue 'selfishness' with 'rational self-interest' as the two are quite different.. There really wasn't a time where it was stated that you should be 'selfish' at the cost and/or potential burden of others so that you can pursue your own personal and self-fulfilling desires. It had more to do with valuing yourself and what you are capable as man, and that the pursuit of your own rational self-interest/happiness was your highest moral value.

She stated that the ideal man didn't care about others at all, and did things solely for his own benefit without regard to how it hurt everyone else. If that's not selfish, I don't know what is.

Shizumaru wrote:

I do however understand, and agree that growing up in a communistic country and immigrating to a capitalist nation would largely skew her beliefs. That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

No, imperialism did.

matt has a problem

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

This country was founded as a Socialist Republican Democracy.

This country was founded as a monarchy. It was turned into a republic.

JJ

What flower? I haven't seen a flower?

Shizumaru

I think the overall premise of the book, however fictional it may be isn't as important as the concept behind it, i.e., that there are people producing the things that actually contribute to the country, produce wealth,etc.. versus the looters who add no value and feel that because of their 'need' that the producers should sacrifice themselves and what they have created, and thusly earned, for the betterment of 'society'.

OptimusZed

matthasaproblem wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

This country was founded as a Socialist Republican Democracy.

This country was founded as a monarchy. It was turned into a republic.

Well, by the time the Constitution was written it was a Republican Democracy. Arguably, before that it was a different country, but I can see your point.

Elki

OK, fine, post the stupid flower. You jerks.

Calvin's comics is better, anyways.

OptimusZed

JJ wrote: »

What flower? I haven't seen a flower?

Google "Bob the Objectivist Flower".

JJ

Oh wait, yeah now I remember I seen it.

I could stand to see it again because I forgot what it is.

Edit: okay yeah I never seen that before. I had a chuckle.

moniker

Elki wrote: »

Haven't read it. I was thinking about it but somebody told me Fountainhead was a better, shorter sampling of Rand's fiction, so I read that. It was pretty awful.

I would say that Fountainhead is worse, actually, but then I'm biased what with her using an architect as the protagonist(?) of the book.

Both of them violate some pretty basic realities, though. Fountainhead pretty much is exactly the opposite of what architecture is, and Atlas defies the second law of thermodynamics. Which is just about the only way that her 'philosophy' could work. If the laws of the universe were to just be suspended for no apparent reason.

Shizumaru

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

This country was founded as a Socialist Republican Democracy.

I'll actually retract that statement as I worded it wrongly. I didn't mean to say that this country was founded on it, but more along the lines, that capitalism in general did elevate the US, more so I'm thinking in regards to the industrial revolution.

kdrudy

I've heard it's a pretty bad sci-fi novel, long winded and poorly written.

Elki

I still think about reading the book because the supposedly better Fountainhead was so bad. I'm curious how bad the cartoonish heroes/villains and monologuing gets.

durandal4532

Shizumaru wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

atlas shrugged is terrible because objectivism is terrible

because it is a way for selfish people to justify being selfish

and it came to be because Rand grew up in a horrible place and came to what she saw as a capitalist paradise in comparison, which she basically came to worship

I think people sometimes misconstrue 'selfishness' with 'rational self-interest' as the two are quite different.. There really wasn't a time where it was stated that you should be 'selfish' at the cost and/or potential burden of others so that you can pursue your own personal and self-fulfilling desires. It had more to do with valuing yourself and what you are capable as man, and that the pursuit of your own rational self-interest/happiness was your highest moral value.

I do however understand, and agree that growing up in a communistic country and immigrating to a capitalist nation would largely skew her beliefs. That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country. However, I will say that I don't agree with Rand in the idea of Laissez-faire capitalism as it does need to be regulated. Rand also didn't believe in patents and copyright law either, which I don't agree with.

I think people sometimes mistake "Rational Self Interest" for a capacity that humans possess.

Demanding rationality from a human being is like demanding speech from a dog. Except I suppose the dog can answer the question of what is on top of a house.

Elki

moniker wrote: »

Elki wrote: »

Haven't read it. I was thinking about it but somebody told me Fountainhead was a better, shorter sampling of Rand's fiction, so I read that. It was pretty awful.

I would say that Fountainhead is worse, actually, but then I'm biased what with her using an architect as the protagonist(?) of the book.

Both of them violate some pretty basic realities, though. Fountainhead pretty much is exactly the opposite of what architecture is, and Atlas defies the second law of thermodynamics. Which is just about the only way that her 'philosophy' could work. If the laws of the universe were to just be suspended for no apparent reason.

You're making me want to read this.

OptimusZed

Shizumaru wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

This country was founded as a Socialist Republican Democracy.

I'll actually retract that statement as I worded it wrongly. I didn't mean to say that this country was founded on it, but more along the lines, that capitalism in general did elevate the US, more so I'm thinking in regards to the industrial revolution.

That was largely a capitalist enterprise (in this country, at least), though one could make a fairly strong argument that unbridled capitalism, even in that instance, was pretty harmful to a huge cross-section of people.

Hexmage-PA

OptimusZed wrote: »

That was largely a capitalist enterprise (in this country, at least), though one could make a fairly strong argument that unbridled capitalism, even in that instance, was pretty harmful to a huge cross-section of people.

Capitalism didn't mean it! He'd had a rough day is all...

moniker

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote:

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

No, imperialism did.

Also, slaves.

KalTorak

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

This country was founded as a Socialist Republican Democracy.

I'll actually retract that statement as I worded it wrongly. I didn't mean to say that this country was founded on it, but more along the lines, that capitalism in general did elevate the US, more so I'm thinking in regards to the industrial revolution.

That was largely a capitalist enterprise (in this country, at least), though one could make a fairly strong argument that unbridled capitalism, even in that instance, was pretty harmful to a huge cross-section of people.

Pretty much what I was going to say. Slavery was pretty damn profitable, particularly when things like the cotton gin came along, and did quite a bit to elevate the country (economically, anyway...).

Shizumaru

Captain Carrot wrote: »

She stated that the ideal man didn't care about others at all, and did things solely for his own benefit without regard to how it hurt everyone else. If that's not selfish, I don't know what is.

Because I've never seen it worded this way specifically I'll have to disagree in the context of not caring at all about others.

OptimusZed

Hexmage-PA wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

That was largely a capitalist enterprise (in this country, at least), though one could make a fairly strong argument that unbridled capitalism, even in that instance, was pretty harmful to a huge cross-section of people.

Capitalism didn't mean it! He'd had a rough day is all...

"Why do you make me hit ya, poor people? You know I love ya, but ya always make me hit you."

SkyGheNe

Elki wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

Elki wrote: »

Haven't read it. I was thinking about it but somebody told me Fountainhead was a better, shorter sampling of Rand's fiction, so I read that. It was pretty awful.

I would say that Fountainhead is worse, actually, but then I'm biased what with her using an architect as the protagonist(?) of the book.

Both of them violate some pretty basic realities, though. Fountainhead pretty much is exactly the opposite of what architecture is, and Atlas defies the second law of thermodynamics. Which is just about the only way that her 'philosophy' could work. If the laws of the universe were to just be suspended for no apparent reason.

You're making me want to read this.

I got a copy for free at a book trading shindig.

Every day I contemplate burning it.

moniker

Elki wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

Elki wrote: »

Haven't read it. I was thinking about it but somebody told me Fountainhead was a better, shorter sampling of Rand's fiction, so I read that. It was pretty awful.

I would say that Fountainhead is worse, actually, but then I'm biased what with her using an architect as the protagonist(?) of the book.

Both of them violate some pretty basic realities, though. Fountainhead pretty much is exactly the opposite of what architecture is, and Atlas defies the second law of thermodynamics. Which is just about the only way that her 'philosophy' could work. If the laws of the universe were to just be suspended for no apparent reason.

You're making me want to read this.

The main character basically invents a perpetual motion machine, but doesn't want to share his free energy.

Khavall

Elki wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

Elki wrote: »

Haven't read it. I was thinking about it but somebody told me Fountainhead was a better, shorter sampling of Rand's fiction, so I read that. It was pretty awful.

I would say that Fountainhead is worse, actually, but then I'm biased what with her using an architect as the protagonist(?) of the book.

Both of them violate some pretty basic realities, though. Fountainhead pretty much is exactly the opposite of what architecture is, and Atlas defies the second law of thermodynamics. Which is just about the only way that her 'philosophy' could work. If the laws of the universe were to just be suspended for no apparent reason.

You're making me want to read this.

Yeah, the guy comes up with a way to get infinite free energy. And then other people think that such a discovery should be shared by the people instead of either restricted to only the rich or all the money flowing directly to this guy when he wants to sell it.

How dare those other people!

Lanz

Shizumaru wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

atlas shrugged is terrible because objectivism is terrible

because it is a way for selfish people to justify being selfish

and it came to be because Rand grew up in a horrible place and came to what she saw as a capitalist paradise in comparison, which she basically came to worship

I think people sometimes misconstrue 'selfishness' with 'rational self-interest' as the two are quite different.. There really wasn't a time where it was stated that you should be 'selfish' at the cost and/or potential burden of others so that you can pursue your own personal and self-fulfilling desires. It had more to do with valuing yourself and what you are capable as man, and that the pursuit of your own rational self-interest/happiness was your highest moral value.

I do however understand, and agree that growing up in a communistic country and immigrating to a capitalist nation would largely skew her beliefs. That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country. However, I will say that I don't agree with Rand in the idea of Laissez-faire capitalism as it does need to be regulated. Rand also didn't believe in patents and copyright law either, which I don't agree with.

now, I haven't read the book myself, but I believe I read what was supposed to be a trustworthy summary of the premise and the events that trigger the plot in the book, so I must ask: doesn't that completely undermine Galt's whole little tizzy?

Shizumaru

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Shizumaru wrote: »

That said, I still see nothing wrong with capitalism in general, as it is what founded this country.

This country was founded as a Socialist Republican Democracy.

I'll actually retract that statement as I worded it wrongly. I didn't mean to say that this country was founded on it, but more along the lines, that capitalism in general did elevate the US, more so I'm thinking in regards to the industrial revolution.

That was largely a capitalist enterprise (in this country, at least), though one could make a fairly strong argument that unbridled capitalism, even in that instance, was pretty harmful to a huge cross-section of people.

To that end I agree, and feel that it does need and should be regulated and not all left to free market as there are those who it can potentially hurt.