I'm a fan of yours, Flying Squid - I like your comments and posts.
And this meme is so very true. If I may quote someone named "John Rogers", who I don't know very well, but can find his words by searching "ayn rand lord of the rings orcs", here is something that I think others might find meaningful:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
i love their point about atlas shrugged. all the rich "Dooers" have retreated to a single valley, while the world falls into chaos without the billionaire ruling class.
In this valley, everything is prestine. You have untouched forrests, fields, perfect lakes.
And somehow, you have one guy logging the forest making enough lumber for a city of a hundred, despite the forest being untouched. you have fresh oranges and coffee... despite the world falling apart. you have a single doctor, and no hospital, ect ect.
There is a very true Tumblr post that goes "it's really annoying, because "Atlas Shrugged" is such a raw title. The titan that holds up the world on his shoulders decides "no, fuck this shit" and shrugs. For it to be wasted on a book that's just "I hate poor people, actually." Is a travesty"
I've read several books in the Objectivists library, including Atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, and the virtue of selfishness.
For a certain kind of person, I do think they have value in showing a different ethical/moral framework. To wit, if you have been raised on the principal that you must always sacrifice your own happiness for others, then Onjectivist philosophy is quite novel and can actually be helpful in moving towards a more self-actualized thought mode.
For most others, however, it can turn you into a raging a-hole.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
I think about those who like American Psycho or Breaking Bad, and even see themselves as those characters, unaware that those characters were assholes and emulating them makes you a bad person.
Where others see how f'd up the system is and these two are pushing the limits of what's acceptable.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
That's often raised against her, but there's really no contradiction. She lived in society(tm) and worked within its rules. Communists don't give up their beliefs when they (have to) go to work in privately owned companies either, and in the same way there's no contradiction there.
I'm also wondering whether she went on social security because she had to or because of just reclaiming back part of what should have remained hers (by her philosophy)? Her books sold millions while she was alive, and she did paid lectures until 1981 (and died in 1982).
I commend you for posting this meme in the correct order. A lot of times I see this posted with the frames reversed so it looks like taking off the glasses is what lets you see the craziness.
I read The Fountainhead instead, and it was interesting enough to keep me reading. "Okay, there's a lot of setup of characters and circumstances going on, I am curious to know how this plays out," and then it just ... doesn't. It was all a lead-up to a long, weakly written, and plainly stupid monologue about how completely ruthless all people should be at all times, only ever thinking in the shortest term about themselves.
I closed that book wondering why Ayn Rand was famous for anything beyond being a shitbag, when I was young enough to be kind of a shitbag myself.
There's a tech recruiting company called "John Galt Staffing." I don't know if they're run by Libertarians or it's just an unfortunate name conflict, but whenever they contact me, I respond with an email saying that I won't do business with them.
If I had that name, I'd change it. "I just don't know why little Adolf is having trouble with his classmates."
I have a relative who was named Adolph (with that spelling) immediately before the rise of Hitler. I think he kept it on the, "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks," logic, but I'm not sure.
I feel dumb because I read this book only because of BioShock, and a and was like, "pretty neat." I didn't really think too much about it after that. So I love when I read about people's critiques of it!
Galt's Gulch was much more Socialist Commune than libertarian.
Money had no use as Ragnar was running around distributing gold to everyone on a regular basis, John Galt had built a literal free energy machine and was giving the power away AND giving vanishingly cheap lectures on how to build one. Even the scarce resources (like the only car in the entire society) were being rented out for 50 cents a day.
Plus all these fiercely competitive supercapitalists would just step aside and just allow competitors to operate with no challenge. The iron mine, and coal mine were all running at industrial scales to serve a town of a few hundred (they had robot labour and free energy) and when the copper miner just showed up they just let him stake a an exclusive claim and start digging with no issue.
Can someone explain me, why is it bad to think about yourself? This book teaches you, how to first think about yourself, than others.
She(or Nathan) wrote, that if you do something with "I want this, so I do this" manner, that isn't great. The formula should be "This should be done, because of some rational reasoning, so I'll do this". If you are not involving others right to think/live/freedom.
In the beginning of the story our so called heroes run their train through a red light because they don't want to be late for a meeting. That's not thinking for yourself. That's not even thinking period. They are gambling not only their own, but dozens of other peoples lives to avoid a minor inconvenience. This is far from the only example of this happening.
In a world of Ayn Rand everyone also works together. She wrote, that people should work with each other. They will benefit from this. One person is not capable of doing everything. However, you can choose who to work with. You would always want to work with someone who does everything right and in time.
All people are not equal, and that is a fact, but in rational world they can work hard to be noticed by another rational person. You don't judge by the look of their skin, cloths or fortune. You judge by the way they think. There would be no slaves, those who worked hard would earn more.
The machines are built by workers, but who made the blueprint? They sold it or shared it to make life more comfortable for themselves, thus making the progress. You will end up with better and more goods. This is one of the reasons you must value yourself.
Money is virtue, because it's one of the least thing people agreed on as equal value to something. I really don't want to barter for the new phone, to be honest.
It's a problem, that you are not getting paid enough, but that's not problem of the money, that's people who are paying less are a problem.
Communism isn't equal too. You, in fact, would get paid the same amount as everyone else. What's the point of doing better and more, if you get paid the same?
So I still don't understand to be honest, are there other explanations? With all my pleasure, if everything is shared, I do not want to share my woman with someone, who needs it more. Share my workplace with someone who needs it more, but I will give it to someone, who's better than me. Share my payment, because someone needs it more. If I want to, I have some surplus and I won't need it, than sure, I will share. I won't do it mandatory.
Ayn Rand is a dumbass that encourages atomization of humanity, when humans are a social species. Placing the self over the whole is where we get fascism.
Where she states about atomozation? In her books her heroes communicate with each other, drinking and go lazy. They can't communicate with people not their kind, 'cause they get real bored. I doubt you can talk and dance with people you are not interested in.
Yet again, they don't put themselves above others, they mostly don't judge at all. They state facts and that's it, no hostility involved.