Movie: Atlas Shrugged

[bwarbiany]

Something dnakase said in his "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" thread sparked my interest to post this up here...

It's a movie for people who've read the book, and for people who decided to skip 1150 pages (wussies)... Looks like it might have to go to a three-movie set to deal with the length...

I think G_E will be interested :D

http://www.missliberty.com/FilmAtlas.html

[Golden_Eternity]

I started reading Atlas Shrugged... I know I really should read it, but Ayn is about the only philosopher that its popular to know, so I've resisted if only because of everyone telling me I should read it. :)

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by Golden_Eternity
I started reading Atlas Shrugged... I know I really should read it, but Ayn is about the only philosopher that its popular to know, so I've resisted if only because of everyone telling me I should read it. :)

Popular mainly to extreme libertarians, mainly... Most of who became fairly libertarian as a result of reading the book :D

I knew a communist in college (she called herself a Democrat, because she claimed they were the closest she could get to communism), who absolutely hated Ayn Rand... Can't stomach the opposition, I guess...

[Golden_Eternity]

That's funny, I've never heard anyone mention Ayn Rand and libertarian in the same sentence before... I'll try to make a trip out to the library next week.

[Tillers_Rule]

Thats a real interesting book, or so I had a buddy tell me. He used to rave on about Ayn Rand like madness.

[stough]

Rand is mostly popular with republicans and libertarians who'd like to rationalize the conseqences of their policies on those who aren't pursuing lucrative professions.

I chose Rand as a mentor in my HS philosophy class. She really appealed to the "compentent loner" in me who wanted to grow up to be independently wealthy. As someone who felt that they were smart and that those who weren't should suffer mercelessly (mostly because those useless individuals made my life difficult). Her "Philosophy for the New Intellectual" was a great compendium of her ideas without having to wade through her novels (which are readable and fun). As I graduated and went off to engineering school, where the engineers have the same superiority complex where all non-engineering students are dead weight dragging down society, my reading of Rand really meshed well with the "superior engineer" culture. However, as I got to know other people and realize that non-engeering people were often the most fun, interesting, and productive of interesting ideas, the Randians seemed more and more to be a self admiration society.

The reason that Libertarians and Republicans who agree with Rand don't mention her much is that the application of her principals would be quite cruel. They would like to see most public services lifted and those not acting as "producers" would be left behind. Sure, factory workers and service workers are producers the same way that remote aboriginals are "noble savages;" their existance is noble, but they don't get much in the way of rewards for that in a Randian system.

Ok, I've rambled on enough. I guess that I can sum up by saying that most people grow out of Randianism and realize that the world has alot more variety than those who produce and those who don't. And you can't simply cut "non-producers" adrift without major reprocussions to the health of your society.

What happened to the rest of the world when everyone followed John Galt to his Randian Utopia in the mountains?

Later,
Tim.

[stough]

I forgot that this post was about the movie!

I'd love to go see it if they make it. I enjoyed the book, but it got a bit repetitive. Rand definitely wants to make sure that you get the point. ;)

Later,
Tim.

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by stough
What happened to the rest of the world when everyone followed John Galt to his Randian Utopia in the mountains?

I don't want to get into a huge debate over this with you, so I chose not to address the rest of the message... I can tell you that we disagree to a large extent, and that I don't think a Randian world would see the lesser producers of the world tossed to a cage to be lion food...

But the question that you ask about what happened when everyone followed John Galt is a good one. The rest of the world derided and harassed the "producers", who blindly went along accepting that this was the way things should be. The point she was proving was that the rest of the world was surviving simply because the "producers" were willing to let themselves be exploited. Once the producers were not willing to do so anymore, the rest of the world fell apart.

The true point of it all is that it is those productive people (and this is not JUST engineers, mind you) are the very ones who have created the standard of living which even the poor people in this country enjoy. But instead of getting a nice "Thank You", they get vilified constanly as evil "businessmen". The point that she is proving is that those people who are living as parasites of the productive, are doing so only because the productive people have consented to let it happen.

[meanstreets]

word.... bwarbiany!:D

[Kurt'sSV]

Wow, haven't read this book but want to now. From what I know of Stough and Warbiany I'll probably see it more like Stough does.

Originally posted by bwarbiany
The point that she is proving . . .

How do you prove a point with a fictional story? That's like saying NWA's song "Fuck the Police" proves police brutality. Or did you mean she was proving things within the context of the story, like how Winston Smith's job in 1984 proved that his country's government covered up truths and replaced them with lies, but proves nothing about practices of the British government?

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by Kurt'sSV
How do you prove a point with a fictional story? That's like saying NWA's song "Fuck the Police" proves police brutality. Or did you mean she was proving things within the context of the story, like how Winston Smith's job in 1984 proved that his country's government covered up truths and replaced them with lies, but proves nothing about practices of the British government?

Basically, the fictional story is one that is a forum for her philosophical beliefs. I probably should be saying "The point she is making" rather than "proving."

But it is definitely true that many of the viewpoints of the antagonists in the story is prevalent in our society today, and even becoming more so. So to a point, the book is not entirely fiction. It was a fictional story based on the beliefs and actions that Ayn Rand saw in the world, so by extension, some of the things that she brings up may be valid ideas in the same (real) situation.

And don't pay any attention to Stough, he's been in California too long, and has been poisoned :p

[bdmsupersport]

Stories are a form of anecdotal evidence and therefore capable of "proving". I therefore conclude that "fuck the police" in combination with "911 is a joke" proves police brutality :D

[Kurt'sSV]

Originally posted by bwarbiany

And don't pay any attention to Stough, he's been in California too long, and has been poisoned :p

I'll keep that in mind.

Funny coincidence. Last night's rerun of South Park was where Officer Bar Brady learned to read and read Atlas Shrugged. He thought it was garbage and swore never to read again.

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by Kurt'sSV
Funny coincidence. Last night's rerun of South Park was where Officer Bar Brady learned to read and read Atlas Shrugged. He thought it was garbage and swore never to read again.

I'm not surprised... Atlas Shrugged is a very polarizing book. If you go into completely disagreeing with everything about Ayn Rand's philosophy, you're probably not going to like it...

Or it'll change your mind :D

[stough]

Oh, come on, huge debates are fun! And I wasn't poisoned by SoCal, I honed my beliefs at good ole Purdue University in Indiana. I've always liked going against the grain...

Anyhow, Rand is a philosopher, she isn't really "proving" anything, just making a well reasoned argument.

Let's get on the same page with a quick summary of objectivism (Rand's philosophy):

Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others. Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects each person's rights to life, liberty, and property and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else. The heroes of Objectivism are achievers who build businesses, invent technologies, and create art and ideas, depending on their own talents and on trade with other independent people to reach their goals.

Alrighty... I must say this: objectivism feels good. You are a hero. Your are an achiever. You are a producer! Especially when you are a member of the upper 50% already. When you have a marketable talent or a good idea and want to go into business for yourself. Let's face it, in our world, education is key. Sure, you can make a living without a college degree, but it makes a big difference if you have one; especially one which points to a lucrative profession. But, let's say that you are a member of the underclass. Your public schools suck and college is very expensive. If our government were strictly limited, would it help you pay for school? If you lost your job, would it help you make ends meet while you look for another one. As long at you're earning well and living on top, life is good...

Objectivism is great, it strokes your ego, and assuages your guilt about the ills of society. Hey, those who are suffering the ills of society are non-producers and our limited government shouldn't be pandering to those who don't pitch in and produce. This is the problem with objectivist philosophy. Yeah, people are heroes, here to become the top of the food chain and moguls of industry. However, ultra-light government and few public services and the rich pursuing rational self-interest leads to an increasing class spread between lower and upper. If that self-interest were sufficiently broad and rational, an Objectivist would realize that services provided by the government in our current system need to come from somewhere and foundations would spring up to take up the slack. Unfortunately, the majority of the those are pursuing rational self-interest and really have better stuff to do with the proceeds of their labors...

My major gripe is that Objectivism is just too narrow. It is so much about you, the individual, and it assumes that if everyone pursues that goal, the world is great. Well, maybe... Maybe if we had a society of 100% educated, enlightened, and free thinking individuals who take their responsibility to realize that their rational self-interest needs to encompass the health of society and not just themselves, then it would work. I suppose...

So, Brad, how do you address the health of society at large when those who can afford to choose to be objectvists and follow John Galt, do? How does a nation follow both an Objectivist philosophy and close the class gap? Is this an important question for an objectivist? Do we just assume that, if everyone decides to follow rational self-interest, our problems will go away and all the government will have to do is national defense and building roads?

BTW, this is all in good fun. I love debate. :D

Later,
Tim.

[Sasquatch]

Originally posted by stough
Oh, come on, huge debates are fun!...

-snip stuff-

Tim

Ah, Tim. You have definately caused me to wax nostalgic. Many nights did I spend at Gio's (long after closing, mind you) with my classmates debating just such topics. Somehow, usually after too many beers, the conversation would degrade into super string theory and theoretical mathematics.

We never did get around to solving the world's problems; just a lot of calculus.

:D

[oredith]

i majored in architecture, and it wasn't required, but was thought ODD if you didn't read the Fountainhead... i fell for it, and read it, and loved it.. and subsequently read atlas shrugged, we the living, the romantic's manifesto, etc..

in fact, i re-read the fountain head VERY recently.

the thing is, i like ayn rand's writing style, though i don't identify with the views she preaches. i think she makes philosophy -fun- to read.. and the absolutes she writes into her characters are interesting. most people i meet, who have read the books, like to identify themselves with the main character, the 'virtuous' men (virtuous in Rand's terms). the selfish, the idealistic, the non-compromising being that is 'the heroic in men'..

i personally find that funny, because i have never met anyone in my life that i would identify as anything close to the main characters in her books. i did realize, however, that the "adversaries" are quite interesting. I loved the character Elsworth Toohey in the fountain head..

"what good is the wealth of the world, if one loses their soul achieving it?"

"so to be truly wealthy, one has to collect souls?"

i have never read anything as insightful as these 2 sentences..

the ability to control people, without material persuasion, is true power.. if the "heroic in men" is about achieving power, than i would like to be a hero.. but i think Rand's idea of 'heroic in men' is as simple as being uncompromising when facing opposition, where as my idea of the 'heroic in men' is to completely DESTROY the opposition so that there is no doubt who is in power.

all in theory, of course.. :)

Jeff

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by stough
So, Brad, how do you address the health of society at large when those who can afford to choose to be objectvists and follow John Galt, do? How does a nation follow both an Objectivist philosophy and close the class gap? Is this an important question for an objectivist? Do we just assume that, if everyone decides to follow rational self-interest, our problems will go away and all the government will have to do is national defense and building roads?

I'm at work, so I probably can't spend all day with this, but I'll give it a quick try...

There is one problem with government programs. Force.

If you do follow objectivist philosophy, nothing in it EVER says that it is not moral to help your neighbor or contribute to charity. Not having people dying of hunger on the street is in everyone's self interest.

Where the problem comes in is that people are trying to enforce their morality with threat of prison. If I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail. I fully support helping people, and using some of my money to do so, but I don't support not having a choice in where it goes or whether or not it can be used.

If we take a chainsaw to most of these government programs, we'll be in better shape. That means we can reduce taxes (which, we all know, increases economic growth). A rising tide will eventually lift all boats. Hence why the poor people in this country have cars, tv's, and air conditioned homes. But, of course, that leaves out some of the people who are currently not producing. I postulate that most of them, if they need to, can get off their asses and work. And for those that are truly unable to do so, I'm sure the greater income would lead to more charitable contributions, and they'll be taken care of as well.

To sum up

Everyone wants to help people. Everyone wants a nice life with enough food and money for college and etc etc. What people don't have is a claim on me. People can't come to me and say "You owe me a college education, I have a right to force you to provide it for me." If I steal $5 from you and give it to a homeless guy, that's stealing. If I get the government to steal $5 from you and give it to the homeless guy, it doesn't become right, it's still stealing. But it is completely moral for me or you, if we do so of our own volition, to give $5 to the homeless guy.

[stough]

[-(

Ok, fine. I don't want to argue trickle down economics. They didn't work during the 12 year Regan/Bush occupancy and I doubt that they'll work very well for shrub (W) or anyone else who tries to claim that if you ignore the problem and support big business that the problem will go away.

I think objectivism is great, it just doesn't work if you use it in either your politics or personal life. ;) :D

Later,
Tim.

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by stough
[-(

Ok, fine. I don't want to argue trickle down economics. They didn't work during the 12 year Regan/Bush occupancy and I doubt that they'll work very well for shrub (W) or anyone else who tries to claim that if you ignore the problem and support big business that the problem will go away.

I think objectivism is great, it just doesn't work if you use it in either your politics or personal life. ;) :D

Later,
Tim.

Alright, supply side economics notwithstanding, let's talk about rights here... You don't have a *right* to cheap health care. You don't have a *right* to force other people to buy you food. You don't have a *right* to anything except being left alone.

You know the reason for this? It's because all of these rights mean that you're taking away other people's rights to get what you want. The simple fact of the matter is, that you are taking away my ability to choose what I want to do with the proceeds of my work, so that you can use them for your own purposes. It doesn't necessarily mean that those purposes are not noble, or those purposes don't help people. You don't have a right to help yourself to my cash for your purposes.

As I said before, America is one of the most generous nations in the world. We're more willing than just about everyone else in the world to contribute aid to starving children all over the world. We're more willing than just about anyone else to voluntarily contribute to charities in our own country. And these contributions are all noble and good. What is not good is forcing these contributions, under threat of jail time, when someone may not be interested in making them.

That is the point of objectivism. The moral position is that people have every right to choose for themselves what to do with their OWN money. It is not moral to force other people to contribute to your cause. This is true whether your cause is supported by 51% of the population, by 90% of the population, or (as the case usually is with our congress), by the 3% of the population dropping money to their special interest group.

[No_Brakes23]

And don't pay any attention to Stough, he's been in California too long, and has been poisoned

The problem with my beloved republic is not the natives, it's the people from out of state.:p

And I wasn't poisoned by SoCal, I honed my beliefs at good ole Purdue University in Indiana.

see...

California will be a much nicer place when all the assholes who keep bitching about how much they hate it finally move out.:)

I read Fountainhead, and like it a lot. I read Anthem and it seemed very '84/F451ish to me. I read a funny book, (Similar to Red Dwarf or Hitchiker's Guide funny,) called "Sewer,Gas, and Electric" that devoted the better part of a chapter to encapsulating everything that happened in "Atlas Shrugged" into something MUCH smaller than 1139 pages. And it gave historical background on Ayn Rand, her hatred of communism, and where she got it from.

Just wish I could remember who wrote that book...

[No_Brakes23]

I found it...

Sewer, Gas & Electric: The Public Works Trilogy by Matt Ruff

1997, Aspect Science Fiction, Warner Books

[RobSD]

Yah I read The Fountainhead too. It was one of those "must read" books - or so I'd been told - and it was a pretty enjoyable tome. What was most striking was her ability to be credible writing from the male (Roark's) point of view. I kept thinking...damn she's got the male psyche down pat!

With that said the Rand as religion phenomenon is a bit creepy. I don't find anything inherently moral or immoral in an economic system. And it's sort of ironic given Rand's rants against religion that some of her fans are so devoted to her ideals.

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by RobSD
With that said the Rand as religion phenomenon is a bit creepy. I don't find anything inherently moral or immoral in an economic system. And it's sort of ironic given Rand's rants against religion that some of her fans are so devoted to her ideals.

Not to start an argument here, but I can't really think that you read the book very closely to say that... There is a large degree of morality or immorality associated with an economic system.

If you don't see the relationship, then just think about slavery... Slavery is, in fact, an economic system. You own people who are required to do the work for you, and you are entitled to all the benefits. Can you figure out whether that extreme case is moral or immoral?

Of course, the questions change when you determine whether capitalism or socialism is a more "moral" system. To determine whether anything is moral or immoral, you need to determine what is valued. The real question between capitalism and socialism is what is more important, individual freedom or collective well-being. To someone who values his own personal freedom and ownership, capitalism is more moral. To someone who values the collective good above individual good, socialism is a more moral system.

As I said, I don't particularly want to start an argument here. I'm not going to go into which system I believe in (although I think you might have figured that out), but just couldn't let the statement that economics was separate from morality stand. And I'm sure if you really read [I]The Fountainhead[/B] critically, you can see precisely where Ayn Rand really stands on the issue.

[RobSD]

It's not an argument... it's a debate :)

It's been a looong time since I read The Fountainhead so I won't vouch for the finer points of the book... only commenting on Rand's general philosophy.

Not sure I want to touch the slavery analogy as it's something of a loaded topic. But it's worth noting that slavery, segregation, child labor, etc. were all at one time elements of our capitalist economy. My comment is only that economic systems themselves are not moral or immoral. There are certainly immoral aspects of capitalist economies just as there are immoral aspects of socialist economies.

I think we're both sort of saying the same thing. My understanding of Rand (and I may be wrong) is that she believes individual freedom and self-interest are the moral underpinnings of a society (and it loosely defines a capitalist economy). So what happens when self-interests collide? (Rhetorical question)

[SteveNZ]

And people think that motorcyclists are a bunch of ill-educated heathens :D... Reminds me of debates about socialism with my Che Guevara idolising flatmate of a few years back :)

As someone who totally enjoyed Philosophy at university until I hit the "Theory" classes which was thinly veilled mathematics (my brain can't hold formulas although it can happily hold long strings of numbers), I suspect this might be an interesting bit of reading, albeit perhaps a bit on the heavy side if the quotations are anything to go by. The thing is, is the writing actual thought provoking philosophising, or just someone offering up a number of their own opinions with proofs calibrated to show their own desired outcomes as with some I have seen?

Now my brain hurts... :angel:

[NukleoN]

New Zealand? WTF??? Welcome, nonetheless. You blokes down there have cool accents, and apparently, cool bikes!

Haven't read Ayn Rand but I'd probably be interested in what she had to write about.

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by SteveNZ
I suspect this might be an interesting bit of reading, albeit perhaps a bit on the heavy side if the quotations are anything to go by. The thing is, is the writing actual thought provoking philosophising, or just someone offering up a number of their own opinions with proofs calibrated to show their own desired outcomes as with some I have seen?

Actually, this is a fictional novel. It is in all respects basically a grand stage for her philosophy to be presented, but it is by nature much easier to read than pure philosophy...

Of course, being a novel, she does not delve as deeply into the philosophy and its moral underpinnings as in some of her other books, but it's a good read just to see if you even agree with her :D

[Dom]

I don't :D

[bwarbiany]

Originally posted by Dominator
I don't :D

Most folks in the People's Republik of Kalifornia don't...

[Dom]

I just figured it was cause I could think on my own and be empathetic towards others. Either that or I just like Plato more :p