Atlas Shrugged

[Comrade Anarchist]

I love this book and i think it is one of the greatest works of fiction and philosophy ever. Majority of people on this site hate it and would rather burn it. But how many of you have actually read it? The book has you constantly questioning your beliefs. Now many here will never read it and if they do they will probably have their eyes shut for half of it. So i was just wondering how many of you have actually read it and if you have give me your honest opinion on the book and the issues discussed within it.

[John_Jordan]

I read it a long time ago, after I read The Fountainhead, Anthem and We the Living.

At the time, I thought the philosophy was alright, but that's probably because I was only reading it for the story. As a work of fiction, I think it's okay. It had its moments.

But now that I actually know stuff about objectivism, although I'm by no means an expert, I'd have to say that at least with my limited knowledge of it, it's awful. It's just really bad Aristotelianism.

But are you talking about specifically the economic stuff? If so, that's also bad. Because she's a statist without giving any compelling reasons for being so.

[Dimentio]

I read the Fountainhead, but not in its entirety. I stopped reading somewhere in the middle of the book, I think after the protagonist raped that lady. :huh:

[John_Jordan]

I read the Fountainhead, but not in its entirety. I stopped reading somewhere in the middle of the book, I think after the protagonist raped that lady. :huh:

I'm surprised you got that far. I had to force myself to get through it. It's extremely boring, and the protagonist is worthless as a character. Apparently people who exemplify Rand's philosophy are robots with no emotions or clear motivations and character.

[Invincible Summer]

I tried to read it, but it was so incredibly terrible that I couldn't even get past the first 20 pages.

So I just looked up the themes of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and am glad I didn't waste my time on that bullshit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes I read it. I honestly don't know what the attraction is. Politics aside it was just poorly written with horrible characters and dialogue. I really had to force myself to finish the book; if I was not reading it to try and understand her appeal with people, I would have put the book down by page 20.

There's a lot of Christian lit out there that I might not agree with philosophically in in their world-view, but I can still enjoy it if it is well written and an interesting meditation on christian philosophy.

"The Jungle" is poorly written but I agree with the politics and can enjoy the documentary-style scenes of immigrant life in Chicago.

Steinbeck is enjoyable in his more radical writings as well as his later conservative period - just an amazing writer regardless.

I think Rand only works as a novelist if you already agree with her world-view. And since that world-view is repeatedly countered by history (if you want to see what happens when the bosses take all their money and "talent" and leave society, rent "The Take" or read about the Paris Commune), her fans probably crave a description of the world that fits her view or reality.

[#FF0000]

I read it. It's a shitty book. Philosophy aside, most philosophers are absolutely terrible writers and Rand is a great example of this. So it Kant.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I couldn't even get past the first 20 pages.:laugh:That's what I just wrote! I guess 20 pages is the limit for Ayn Rand tolerance if you are a leftist.

[Demogorgon]

I read some of it, but never finished it. Rand is alright at creating a page turner, but those books should never be too long because they can't sustain themselves for terribly long. The point she was trying to push in it was obviously extremely weak, so it amazes me how many people are indoctrinated by it.

I am told that story wise The Fountainhead is a bit better, but I have never attempted to read that, so I couldn't say for sure.

[Dimentio]

I'm surprised you got that far. I had to force myself to get through it. It's extremely boring, and the protagonist is worthless as a character. Apparently people who exemplify Rand's philosophy are robots with no emotions or clear motivations and character.

He has a clear character.

He wants to build modernist buildings, and that is all. Except for that rape thing and so on. He was apparently inspired by a child-killer.

[John_Jordan]

I read it. It's a shitty book. Philosophy aside, most philosophers are absolutely terrible writers and Rand is a great example of this. So it Kant.

Plato, and Umberto Eco off the top of my head are not shitty writers of fiction. Aristotle, and Parmenides apparently weren't either.



I am told that story wise The Fountainhead is a bit better, but I have never attempted to read that, so I couldn't say for sure.

It's not. The story in The Fountainhead is much worse than Atlas Shrugged. IMHO anyway.


He has a clear character.

He wants to build modernist buildings, and that is all. Except for that rape thing and so on. He was apparently inspired by a child-killer.

If you count that as "character" then okay. Then he just has a flat and simplistic one.

[eyedrop]

I've read some books of that Sword of Truth series, which is at least somewhat related.


While he acknowledges writing in the fantasy genre, he perceives his novels to be more than just traditional fantasy because of their focus on philosophical and human themes.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Goodkind#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Goodkind#cite_note-9) Goodkind believes that using the fantasy genre allows him to better tell his stories and better convey the human themes and emotions that he desires to share with the reader. Regardless of the genre of his novels, Goodkind states his main goal in writing is to inspire.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Goodkind#cite_note-10)
Goodkind has been largely influenced by the books of Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) and is a strong supporter of her works and of Objectivist philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Goodkind#cite_note-11)

[Dimentio]

Plato, and Umberto Eco off the top of my head are not shitty writers of fiction. Aristotle, and Parmenides apparently weren't either.



It's not. The story in The Fountainhead is much worse than Atlas Shrugged. IMHO anyway.



If you count that as "character" then okay. Then he just has a flat and simplistic one.

Hahaha... I did not say he was sympathetic. There are such people though in existence. They are usually given anti-depressants.

[John_Jordan]

I've read some books of that Sword of Truth series, which is at least somewhat related.

Goodkind is also awful.

I never thought of this before, but maybe Rand's philosophy is so toxic and corrosive that any attempt to write fiction by an Objectivist author leads to disaster.

[eyedrop]

Goodkind is also awful.

I can't remember anything about the books, but I recon there was a reason I only read a few of them while I was a teenager with a mild case of insomnia.

[Dimentio]

I can't remember anything about the books, but I recon there was a reason I only read a few of them while I was a teenager with a mild case of insomnia.

An original book about a boy growing up in a village who is a bit of a dreamer... then he's prophesied to save the peoples of Westland and Midland from an evil sorcerer-king who is living in the east. Has never been done before in the history of fantasy...

[eyedrop]

An original book about a boy growing up in a village who is a bit of a dreamer... then he's prophesied to save the peoples of Westland and Midland from an evil sorcerer-king who is living in the east. Has never been done before in the history of fantasy...Sorcerer kings usually likes the eastern weather or something when I think about it.


(I'll stop chit-chatting this thread closer to the trash can now.)

[Chimurenga.]

Read some of it. Its a work of fiction and should be taken as so.

[Havet]

I read it. One of my favourite books, though it should be read with a very critical mind. But the story is compelling, and even though the characters are "perfect", they are still an enjoyable experience. Especially Dagny Taggart.

[Bud Struggle]

I read it.

It kind of misses the point of what it means to be a human being. I guess if you view it as a story of someone with a psychological disorder it kind of makes some sense.

[#FF0000]

I read it.

It kind of misses the point of what it means to be a human being. I guess if you view it as a story of someone with a psychological disorder it kind of makes some sense.

:lol:

[ChrisK]

Horrible book. Read it in high school after I read Anthem. I just remeber the main character talked alot.

Read Goodkind. His first book is pretty good for a modern fantasy. The rest are about mass rape (to the point where you really just don't give a shit anymore) and slamming your face with horribly designed arguments that don't really work.

[Bud Struggle]

after I read Anthem.

Now Anthum is a problem. My 15 yo daughter had to read it in freshman year HS and write an essey for a national prise for English class--to win the essey she basically had to say why Rand's hero (I forget the name) is so wonderful. A national essey contest promoting Rand. Promoted in every public HS in the country.

Bothersome to say the least.

[Dimentio]

Now Anthum is a problem. My 15 yo daughter had to read it in freshman year HS and write an essey for a national prise for English class--to win the essey she basically had to say why Rand's hero (I forget the name) is so wonderful. A national essey contest promoting Rand. Promoted in every public HS in the country.

Bothersome to say the least.

Similar things exist in Sweden in primary school and in high school, though not generally about extremists like Rand. We had to read through a book written by a celebrity comedian named Jonas Gardell, who also is a gay, due to a theme week about homosexuality. I remember that William Golding's "The Lord of the Flies" also was very important.

[Jazzratt]

I read it. One of my favourite books

Absolutely not a surprise.

I found a copy in a squat I visited once, I just couldn't hack something like that after a few dozen pages. I did read the 65 odd page speech about how being a selfish twat that loves money is, I hated it. I get the impression that Twillight would be a better read and stand me in better stead politically.

Any of you cappie halfwits read Iain M. Banks' Player of Games?

[Publius]

I love this book and i think it is one of the greatest works of fiction and philosophy ever.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

We can debate the philosophy (I won't, but we COULD), but saying this is a great work of literature is just fucking stupid.



Majority of people on this site hate it and would rather burn it. But how many of you have actually read it?

Me!

And that was when I was a libertarian.


The book has you constantly questioning your beliefs.

It had me questioning my beliefs when I read it.

Only problem was I agreed with it. It was just so bad and so stupid that I found it impossible to agree with.


Now many here will never read it and if they do they will probably have their eyes shut for half of it. So i was just wondering how many of you have actually read it and if you have give me your honest opinion on the book and the issues discussed within it.

In my opinion it's a completely awful work of fiction, and I say this (here) from a purely literary perspective.

Read some Richard Price. Read some Mikhail Bulgakov.

If you want a great anti-Soviet book, read The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov, it's one of the greatest works of fiction in human history.

Not this trash.

[Publius]

I read it. It's a shitty book. Philosophy aside, most philosophers are absolutely terrible writers and Rand is a great example of this. So it Kant.

Kant's not a bad writer, really.

He gets that reputation, but he's actually quite an eloquent writer in many places.

Actually, a lot of philosophers are pretty good writers, at least in the analytic tradition.

Bertrand Russell is an excellent writer (he actually wrote some short stories -- I have no idea if they're any good though), Wittgenstein is a good writer in his own odd way. Hume is an excellent writer.

Examples abound.

[Lynx]

I've not read it. *shrug*

[Publius]

I read it. One of my favourite books, though it should be read with a very critical mind. But the story is compelling, and even though the characters are "perfect", they are still an enjoyable experience. Especially Dagny Taggart.

I thought the characters were awful.

Just the names alone doom them to mockery:

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

Here's a task: Find one name in that least that isn't hilariously bad.

You can't do it.

I'll spot her Jeff Allen, Laura Bradford, and Dan Conway as genuine names that human beings could have. Aside from that, it's a waste land.

Trying to tell me that a book with the character names like Horace Bussby Mowen, Midas Mulligan, and John Naragensett is a great work of fiction is like trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to me. It's not work.

You can, quite literally, tell who the good guys and who the bad guys just by reading their names. If they sound like the names of a condom brand (Hank Rearden), they're good guys, if they sound like some sort of vaginal care product (Bertram Scudder) they're one of the bad guys.

Because that's just good writing.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

An original book about a boy growing up in a village who is a bit of a dreamer... then he's prophesied to save the peoples of Westland and Midland from an evil sorcerer-king who is living in the east.
You mean like Adolf Hitler? :lol:

Ok, seriously, that's the first thing that comes to mind every time I read a story like that. Somehow, I feel there is something inherently fascist about a story of "the Chosen One" who rises from obscurity to become the glorious leader of the civilized world in battle against the eastern hordes.

Tolkein is the only author who avoids that - by having Frodo, not Aragorn, as the hero who saves the world.

[ChrisK]

Now Anthum is a problem. My 15 yo daughter had to read it in freshman year HS and write an essey for a national prise for English class--to win the essey she basically had to say why Rand's hero (I forget the name) is so wonderful. A national essey contest promoting Rand. Promoted in every public HS in the country.

Bothersome to say the least.

Staring at the title on my copy. Its Anthem

[RED DAVE]

I love this book and i think it is one of the greatest works of fiction and philosophy ever. Majority of people on this site hate it and would rather burn it. But how many of you have actually read it? The book has you constantly questioning your beliefs. Now many here will never read it and if they do they will probably have their eyes shut for half of it. So i was just wondering how many of you have actually read it and if you have give me your honest opinion on the book and the issues discussed within it.I once, when young, tried to read it. I found that I was developing a case of cancer of the eyeballs so I gave it up. :D

As a lit major, let me said that it's one of the most pretentious novels ever written by someone alleged to be a serious writer.

RED DAVE

[ChrisK]

I love this book and i think it is one of the greatest works of fiction and philosophy ever. Majority of people on this site hate it and would rather burn it. But how many of you have actually read it? The book has you constantly questioning your beliefs. Now many here will never read it and if they do they will probably have their eyes shut for half of it. So i was just wondering how many of you have actually read it and if you have give me your honest opinion on the book and the issues discussed within it.

I don't want to burn it. Point and laugh at it, yes. Burn it, no.

[RED DAVE]

I look for copies of it in used bookstores. It's so thick, over 1000 pages, that I can use it to line the bottom of the bird cage with it for weeks.

RED DAVE

[Phased Out]

The Ayn Randian notion that the richest people are only those who are the most capable and most productive is completely absurd. Just look at Microsoft. I’m not saying that the Microsoft employees weren’t brighter than average and didn’t put in a lot of hours. But there are lots of bright people who work hard and don’t get anything out of it at all. The Microsoft millionaires were just extraordinarily lucky to be in the right place at the right time.

[Publius]

The story of how Bill Gates made Microsoft is actually quite an interesting tale in how (essentially) luck dictates so much.

[Drace]

I've not read it. *shrug* Atlas Shrug!

[John_Jordan]

Absolutely not a surprise.

I found a copy in a squat I visited once, I just couldn't hack something like that after a few dozen pages. I did read the 65 odd page speech about how being a selfish twat that loves money is, I hated it. I get the impression that Twillight would be a better read and stand me in better stead politically.


Oh Jesus, have you actually tried to read twilight? I'm not saying that Atlas Shrugged is great literature (I'll repeat that I think it is merely okay), but Twilight? That book is so bad.

[Drace]

Let me ask Comrade "Anarchist" this though.

Have you ever read any leftist book at all?

[Scary Monster]

The story of how Bill Gates made Microsoft is actually quite an interesting tale in how (essentially) luck dictates so much.

In addition, Bill Gates stealing technology from Steve Jobs, but marketing his products in a much better way and using business tactics that eventually led to his monopoly over the computer market.

[John_Jordan]

In addition, Bill Gates stealing technology from Steve Jobs, but marketing his products in a much better way and using business tactics that eventually led to his monopoly over the computer market.

He does not have a monopoly over the computer market.

[ChrisK]

He does not have a monopoly over the computer market.

Your use of the present tense is useful here. He did have a monopoly for a while. It was broken by the government.

[John_Jordan]

What time did he have a monopoly on the computer market?

[ChrisK]

What time did he have a monopoly on the computer market?

They were ruled a monopoly May 18, 1998

[John_Jordan]

They were ruled a monopoly May 18, 1998

This may be so, but this doesn't answer the question. When did they have 100% control of the market? Not May 18th 1998. I'll agree that Microsoft had significant control of the market, and may have done all it could to increase that control, but that is not what the word "monopoly" means. There were other sellers at the time.

[ChrisK]

Well thats a stupid definition. According to the legal definition of a monoploy, they were.

[John_Jordan]

Legally, the state is legitimate as well. What the state says is certainly not to be taken as incontrovertible fact.

[Dimentio]

You mean like Adolf Hitler? :lol:

Ok, seriously, that's the first thing that comes to mind every time I read a story like that. Somehow, I feel there is something inherently fascist about a story of "the Chosen One" who rises from obscurity to become the glorious leader of the civilized world in battle against the eastern hordes.

Tolkein is the only author who avoids that - by having Frodo, not Aragorn, as the hero who saves the world.

Yes, but that is because most fantasy is just based on a western conception of the world. Chinese fantasy usually is more about a boy of noble origin who gets his family slain by an evil warlord/emperor, then train with warrior monks for 20 years before going out in the world to take revenge, eventually replacing the Emperor.

Russian fantasy seems more to delve into some sort of mixture between philosophy and thriller stories. The protagonist in Russian fantasy books often is the Emperor - who is good. Those who are evil are secretive cabals infiltrating society and trying to turn the people against the good Emperor, who is forced to do cruel things to save his people.

[Havet]

Absolutely not a surprise.

Any of you cappie halfwits read Iain M. Banks' Player of Games?

You quoted me out of context

So fuck you too

[brigadista]

pretentious and boring

[Demogorgon]

This may be so, but this doesn't answer the question. When did they have 100% control of the market? Not May 18th 1998. I'll agree that Microsoft had significant control of the market, and may have done all it could to increase that control, but that is not what the word "monopoly" means. There were other sellers at the time.
In economics it is normally considered that once a firm controls around 25% of the market that is when it starts to be a monopoly. 100% control is one of these silly theoretical ideas that could never ever happen. What constitutes monopoly power in the real world is what is important.

[Sinred]

One book i actually shoplifted cause i didn't want to support it.
I try to keep a open mind when i read and really get in the world of the author.
So when i opened the book i thought to myself: "You know what? This can be a good experience. Horrible message for sure. But come on, it must be good... right? Americans claimed it to be the second most influential book to yanks. Its gotta be at least a piece of work.
Ok now. Open mind. You are a rich bastard fighting for your greatness even thou everybody else tries to drag you down because they are jealous losers. Here we go... "
I kinda wish the book had pissed me of more then it bored me out, then i wouldnt wasted so long time reading it.
What can i say? It blows big time.
Everyone with a slightest bit of rational thinking already knows that objectivists are batshit crazy and often lets say... introvert. Same goes for objectivism: psychopathic narcissism made into ideology.
But i actually expected the book to be well written, full of characters you could identify yourself with (be they good or evil), subtle but convincing capitalist-propaganda, nice tempo and with good dialogs.
I got out nothing but objectvist delusions and a badly written story who moved on in boring pace with the help of the most simplistic characters possible. I didn't manage to read more than half of it until i said "nah... this is bullshit, im gonna read something good".
I had my doubts thou, i read it in swedish so i started to think it maybe was such a sucky translation who made it all crap. Until i actually realize people who read it in general feel the same way about it in both english, swedish, spanish etc.

Even today i loath people who say they liked "Atlas Shrugged". My analysis: You gotta be pretty fucking dumb to love the story telling but not the message, and you got to be a asshole to love the message but not the literary. If you like both you got to be one of the dumbest fucking assholes ever.

[Kassad]

You quoted me out of context

So fuck you too

Consider this a verbal warning for flaming. How about you follow your own advice?

As for Atlas Shrugged, I promised myself two summers ago that I would get through the whole thing. I was working at a swimming pool, so I had a lot of available time to read. Frankly, I was surprised by how much I initially liked the plot, but by the time I got past page 150 or so, I started to nearly lose my head. Not only is the plot inane and stupid, but once that right-wing lunancy kicks in, it's impossible for anyone with half a brain to stay interested, let alone believe the bullshit that Ayn Rand spews.

The books is one of the most reactionary things I've ever read and I can say the only thing worse I've read by her is For the New Intellectual, which is just absolutely terrible. Rand is one of the most boring writers I've ever read and has the worst political philosophy I've seen to date. I don't recommend reading Atlas Shrugged unless you have a lot of time and willpower to deal with stupidity.

[Crux]

I read about two thirds. You can tell Rand was a sociapath and I pretty much hated every character. Well except for the mexican government that nationalized stuff, they seemed alright. But seriously if you identify with the protagonists you probably have some serious mental issues. Because like Ayn Rand they are fucking sociopaths.

[Martin Blank]

Atlas Shrugged, like all of Ayn Rand's works, speaks to the homicidal maniac inside all of us. That's why so many people want to kill themselves when they try to read it; it's the maniac taking revenge against your intellect for such a lousy literary selection.

[ChrisK]

Legally, the state is legitimate as well. What the state says is certainly not to be taken as incontrovertible fact.

By definition a monopoly is not 100% control of a market. Plain and simple

[Havet]

Consider this a verbal warning for flaming. How about you follow your own advice?

But I do follow my own advice. I have not quoted Jazzratt out of context. To hell with your verbal warnings for flaming. If anyone started the fire it was him, not me.


That's why so many people want to kill themselves when they try to read it

Do you have proof of what you are saying, or are you following the revleft tradition of inventing arguments?

[Dimentio]

If you want to read something which makes it feel like you have smoken mushrooms, I could recommed "The Lightning and the Sun" by Savitri Devi. It is supposed to be an ideological-historical book, but its just... well, impossible to describe. :lol:

[Kassad]

To hell with your verbal warnings for flaming. If anyone started the fire it was him, not me.

"It was always burning since the world's been turning..."

[Havet]

"It was always burning since the world's been turning..."

Is this a discussion forum or a "quote-your-favourite-artist" gathering?

[Kassad]

Is this a discussion forum or a "quote-your-favourite-artist" gathering?

No. It's a "you got a verbal warning, deal with it and move forward or start getting infractions" gathering. Get back on topic.

[Jazzratt]

Kassad is an awesome moderator.

I don't really care that you read the book "critically" hayenmill. The point is that you've had a rock hard stiffy for Rand for ages. Making threads based on her tedious scrawlings and that unfortunate phase you went through asking why we always had a go at her and her misanthropic politics.

[Havet]

Making threads based on her tedious scrawlings and that unfortunate phase you went through asking why we always had a go at her and her misanthropic politics.

You mean, this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rand-destroyed-herself-t122579/index.html?t=122579) kind of thread based on her?

It seems you completely missed the point with my "why-do-you-always-have-a-go-at-rand (http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-all-ayn-t113326/index.html?t=113326)" thread.

I was not pissed at the bashing in itself, but the fact that most of the bashing was done instinctively as if the person, not the arguments, was what matters.

Which is, of course, RIDICULOUS.

[Havet]

No. It's a "you got a verbal warning, deal with it and move forward or start getting infractions" gathering. Get back on topic.

This is ridiculous

[OldMoney]

I read raynds books when I was young and had no deffinate political aleigiance, even back then I never thought it was meant to be taken seriously. Like a work of satire, shamlessley self depricating humor. I was really taken aback when I found there were people who took it seriously.
Im not sure she fully understood capitolism though. The way she put accross the protaganists refusal to accept anything but the best product (being efficient and durable) where we know capitolism is wastefull and relies heavily on marketing and promotion, following trends. Rand also has some prety wild views about sexual concuest. I thought it was prety racy, all her crap is, except maybee anthem.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.

[Crux]

YOU BETTER nOT SPOIL THE ENDING!
haha.
No really I read enough.
Maybe you can tell me what the appeal should have been?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.Then why have a poll asking if we HAVE or HAVE NOT read this book?

At any rate, most people posting have said that they read it - also if someone stopped 1/3rd of the way through, then they obviously did form an opinion of it. If you taste some moldy bread, you can stop, you don't need to finish eating it and wait to see if you vomit all night to determine if the bread is bad.

[Dr Mindbender]

I would get it, but its only like £1.20 for 12 rolls at ASDA.

[RED DAVE]

Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.I did try to read it. The experience was something like continuously listening to fingernails scraping down a blackboard. As I said above, I enjoy using pages of the book as a liner for the bird cage. My two conures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Conure), Sun and Shine, seem to enjoy shitting on Rand's work

By the way, having actually seen and heard Rand in person, looking and listening to her was pretty much the same experience as reading Atlas Shrugged.

There was a cult around Rand in Greenwich Village in the early 60s. Rand wore a cape and smoked using a cigarette holder. It was funny to see all the young women in the cult pretty much dressed the same way.

RED DAVE

[Drace]

Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.

Reading 20 pages means you READ 20 pages.
If someone says the first 20 pages were so horrible they couldn't keep going, then wtf are you ranting about.

You also asked whether we read it or not and now you say we have to read every single page of it to make an opinion on it.

And the use of curse words doesn't make you any cooler dipshit.

[Mumbles]

Add me to the list of people who couldn't get past 20 pages. For both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It was just so f...ing dull.

I mean to start off, with the Fountainhead which I remember better, the character goes in gets yelled at by evil boss-man because boss-man likes things old-school. Pro-ta-gone-ist goes emo and leaves his job or something, then I stopped reading the book because my eyes started bleeding. I mean seriously... how many times has a story started this exact same way BUT stayed interesting? I mean it's not that uncommon of a conflict in a book.

Can't really say too much about the politics from the book because all I saw was Rand whining in the first 20 pages, but I figure it stays the same level of whining throughout the rest of the book but with random characters popping up and saying things like "capitalism can work if given a chance or something, you just gotta, you know, object to it a lot. Hehe object...ivism I can start an ideology off this. Oh wait I'm supposed to be making characters and not speak in first person? Shit."

This was also while I believed myself to be a libertarian so I was hoping to read it to get a good overview of what I supposedly believed. Turns out even I couldn't stand her crap.

[Scary Monster]

Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.

Holy fuck, youre such an obnoxious fucking right wing fuck, you fuck!...FUCK. :lol: I read about 10 pages of it in the Borders book store (whos shelves are full of nothing but right wing nonsense, like 20 copies of this book with the subtitle: "Saving America from the descent into Socialism". Its funny as hell, i gotta post some pics of the bookshelves to show what kind of retarded shit they got), although ive read a lot about her philosophies without reading much of her actual "novels", and i preeetty much feel the same way everyone else here feels about it- extremely asinine, and cant see why Rand is so damn influential and actually taken seriously

[Scary Monster]

He does not have a monopoly over the computer market.

Ohh yes he does ;) As if it isnt common knowledge already, but heres a link: http://www.revleft.com/vb/libertarian-solution-microsoft-t130651/index.html

[John_Jordan]

By definition a monopoly is not 100% control of a market. Plain and simple

It is when a market only has one seller. Or "effectively" one seller. There are, and were other sellers in the Microsoft dominated market, and they were not so pushed aside as to be non-existent.


Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.

Why is everybody in this forum crazy?


Ohh yes he does ;) As if it isnt common knowledge already, but heres a link: http://www.revleft.com/vb/libertarian-solution-microsoft-t130651/index.html

Nope, I don't buy it.

[ChrisK]

It is when a market only has one seller. Or "effectively" one seller. There are, and were other sellers in the Microsoft dominated market, and they were not so pushed aside as to be non-existent.


Do you trust Milton Friedman? He defines a monopoly as existing an enterprise has sufficient control over a commodity to determine significantly the terms that people can purchase it (price, distribution, etc).

[Demogorgon]

Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.
Leaving aside your pathetic ranting for a moment. I notice your latest avatar. Do you know what Rothbard thought of Rand and her cult?

[Dermezel]

Atlas Shrugged= Piece of Shit.

[Chambered Word]

One book i actually shoplifted cause i didn't want to support it.


:thumbup1:


Wow youll are fucktards. i said if you read it. If you have read 20 or 200 pages you havent fucking read it, so this thread isnt for you but if youd prefer to post here then read it and give me your opinion on the book. I didn't say anything about the fountainhead so maybe stay on fucking topic.

I've read the plot and the message of it and I find it stupid and repulsive just like your face. It's hard to believe anyone takes Rand seriously.

I would read it but then again I could be doing something constructive with my time. :rolleyes:

[Dermezel]

One book i actually shoplifted cause i didn't want to support it.


Dude, literally if you steal the book, and give a dollar to the author, either by mail or paypal, you've probably increased the profit he earns 50-100 fold.

[IcarusAngel]

This may be so, but this doesn't answer the question. When did they have 100% control of the market? Not May 18th 1998. I'll agree that Microsoft had significant control of the market, and may have done all it could to increase that control, but that is not what the word "monopoly" means. There were other sellers at the time.

Of course Microsoft is a monopoly. They control a majority of the market and can exercise anti-monopolistic practices in a way that NO OTHER CORPORATION CAN. That is the very definition of a monopoly.

It has nothing do with whether they have 100% control of the market - nobody can ever have 100% control of the market, even a government or an anarcho-capitalist slave society where one corporation has dominated all the resources. There still would technically be some people who traded and so on outside of that corporation, but their TRADE would be directly affected by said corporation, and in the same sense, that is why MS is a monopoly.

By your definition, the government doesn't exist, since the government is supposed to have the monopoly on force. But the government does not have a monopoly on force. People have power to use force, and local and state communities also can use force at the exclusion of the government. This was recognized in the US constitution and was the basis of states' rights, which is heavily flawed, but you can see how no one "entity" has a monopoly on the use of force. Corporations can also use force and political power as well.

Any business that has leverage that can be used against any other business in the same market is a monopoly. Only if all corporations were equal would there be no monopoly, which is impossible under the slavery of capitalism. Capitalism is a monopolistic system.

[John_Jordan]

Do you trust Milton Friedman? He defines a monopoly as existing an enterprise has sufficient control over a commodity to determine significantly the terms that people can purchase it (price, distribution, etc).

I trust Milton Friedman unless I have reason not to trust his judgment. But I trust everybody unless I have reason not to. And I'm not sure that I agree with Milton on this one.


Of course Microsoft is a monopoly. They control a majority of the market and can exercise anti-monopolistic practices in a way that NO OTHER CORPORATION CAN. That is the very definition of a monopoly.

I may have been a bit hasty with my 100% definition, but even a more liberal definition does not cause Microsoft to be a monopoly. Sure, Microsoft can do things other companies can not do due to their control of the market. But they do not have such control that I can not reasonably use a non-microsoft operating system.


By your definition, the government doesn't exist, since the government is supposed to have the monopoly on force. But the government does not have a monopoly on force.

While I applaud your use of valid argument forms, this argument is not sound. The argument simply shows that the government does not have a monopoly on force (using a certain definition of monopoly), not that the government does not exist.


People have power to use force, and local and state communities also can use force at the exclusion of the government. This was recognized in the US constitution and was the basis of states' rights, which is heavily flawed, but you can see how no one "entity" has a monopoly on the use of force. Corporations can also use force and political power as well.

Sure. I don't deny it. What's your point?


Any business that has leverage that can be used against any other business in the same market is a monopoly.

That is an utterly ridiculous definition. For every business has some leverage against any other business. And if every business has it, how can that be a adequate definition that is supposed to apply to only some business and not others? Unless you are to suggest every business is a monopoly, which makes absolutely no sense.

[ChrisK]

I trust Milton Friedman unless I have reason not to trust his judgment. But I trust everybody unless I have reason not to. And I'm not sure that I agree with Milton on this one.


Good job, your even more ignorant than I thought.

[Bud Struggle]

Good job, your even more ignorant than I thought.

But then he said:


But I trust everybody unless I have reason not to. And I'm not sure that I agree with Milton on this one.


Follow the point the guy is making--don't just take sound bites.

[IcarusAngel]

I may have been a bit hasty with my 100% definition, but even a more liberal definition does not cause Microsoft to be a monopoly. Sure, Microsoft can do things other companies can not do due to their control of the market. But they do not have such control that I can not reasonably use a non-microsoft operating system.

They're still a monopoly due to their ability to bully. As Demo said, in economics if you control over 25% of the market you're a monopoly.

you defend the tyranny of limited resources to make everybody slaves on one or two corporations in any given area. You are wrong.



While I applaud your use of valid argument forms, this argument is not sound. The argument simply shows that the government does not have a monopoly on force (using a certain definition of monopoly), not that the government does not exist.

Libertarians claim the government must have a monopoly on force to exist. I was responding to that argument.

If an entity is a government, it has a monopoly on force.

Taking the contrapositive:

If an entity does NOT have a monopoly on force, it is not a government.

Hence, the United States government is not an "actual" government so the United States exists as something else than a government.

The government really doesn't exist. People permit corporations and the government to function, but one day they may prevent them from functioning and move to a system where people own resources collectively.

Now, if you have a different definition of government, then this doesn't apply to you. You may have a clearer position, but it's probably still invalid reasoning like most Libertarian arguments.




Sure. I don't deny it. What's your point?



That is an utterly ridiculous definition. For every business has some leverage against any other business. And if every business has it, how can that be a adequate definition that is supposed to apply to only some business and not others? Unless you are to suggest every business is a monopoly, which makes absolutely no sense.


I meant that they have a leverage to bully everybody in a variety of ways.

This constitutes a monopoly since only they have that much power.

[John_Jordan]

They're still a monopoly due to their ability to bully. As Demo said, in economics if you control over 25% of the market you're a monopoly.

I would in no way accept that definition.


you defend the tyranny of limited resources to make everybody slaves on one or two corporations in any given area. You are wrong.

Uh, what?



Libertarians claim the government must have a monopoly on force to exist. I was responding to that argument.

It's probably best to respond to the arguments actually made by the people you're talking to. Responding to arguments that were not made by the people you're talking to are usually considered Straw Men.

So all right, as a response to the claim that "governments must have a monopoly on force to be governments", and using a certain definition of monopoly, then yes, your argument is sound.


Now, if you have a different definition of government, then this doesn't apply to you. You may have a clearer position, but it's probably still invalid reasoning like most Libertarian arguments.

You act as if I would make a Libertarian argument. I don't have a problem with Libertarians. That doesn't mean I am a Libertarian.


I meant that they have a leverage to bully everybody in a variety of ways.

So a "variety of ways" huh? How many ways does a company need to be a monopoly?

[IcarusAngel]

I would in no way accept that definition.

It doesn't matter what you "believe" to be true.


It's probably best to respond to the arguments actually made by the people you're talking to. Responding to arguments that were not made by the people you're talking to are usually considered Straw Men.

I was using an analogy.


You act as if I would make a Libertarian argument. I don't have a problem with Libertarians. That doesn't mean I am a Libertarian.

Do you have any actual arguments that Microsoft and it's ability to weld power over the market in a way no one else can is not a monopoly, or not?

[John_Jordan]

It doesn't matter what you "believe" to be true.

In what sense?


I was using an analogy.

You were? I thought you were responding to an argument. You said that's what you were doing.


Do you have any actual arguments that Microsoft and it's ability to weld power over the market in a way no one else can is not a monopoly, or not?

Sure. Didn't I say that the fact that I can still easily use an operating system not produce by microsoft leads me to believe microsoft is not a monopoly?

[gorillafuck]

I haven't read it. I intend to so sometime but according to all of you it's terrible so I'm not looking forward to it. But I will. I am interested in how the protagonist can rape someone still remain the protagonist, if that actually does happen?

[John_Jordan]

I haven't read it. I intend to so sometime but according to all of you it's terrible so I'm not looking forward to it. But I will. I am interested in how the protagonist can rape someone still remain the protagonist, if that actually does happen?

A Protagonist is the one who drives the story. The one whom we primarily follow. A protagonist can be any sort of person and be a protagonist. One doesn't have to be good to be a protagonist. Villain protagonists exist (and can be awesome).

[Physicist]

Not particularly interested in the posts associated with analyzing the deeper meanings in Atlas Shrugged, but I will say that I read the first half and skimmed the rest with unpleasant consequences. It's nothing spectacular; perhaps this speaks of my own ethical compass more than anything else, but when I hear someone argue that it's the best piece of philosophy they've read, I start to view that person as being quite a few steps short of bibliophilia.

[ChrisK]

But then he said:



Follow the point the guy is making--don't just take sound bites.

I did. He/she said he/she doesn't agree with an economists definition of a monopoly. He/she should find another definition from another economist, not from his/her ass.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I love this book and i think it is one of the greatest works of fiction and philosophy ever. Majority of people on this site hate it and would rather burn it. But how many of you have actually read it? The book has you constantly questioning your beliefs. Now many here will never read it and if they do they will probably have their eyes shut for half of it. So i was just wondering how many of you have actually read it and if you have give me your honest opinion on the book and the issues discussed within it.

Have you read the Communist Manifesto?

[Bankotsu]

My views on Ayn Rand:




Let me give you a few examples of how the lack of adequate paradigms blocks our understanding of the history of our subject.

The area of political action in our society is a circle in which at least four actors may intervene: the government, individuals, communities, and voluntary associations, especially corporations.

Yet, for the last century, discussion of political actions, and especially the controversies arising out of such actions, have been carried on in terms of only two actors, the government and the individual. Nineteenth century books often assumed a polarization of the individual versus the state, while many twentieth century books seek to portray the state as the solution of most individuals' problems.

Conservatives, from von Hayek to Ayn Rand, now try to curtail government in the excuse that this will give more freedom to individuals, while liberals try to destroy communities with the aim of making all individuals identical, including boys and girls.

And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling, the area of political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual, detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible corporations.



http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Communities-AD-976-1576.htm (http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Communities-AD-976-1576.htm)

[MarxSchmarx]

Having sloughed through that 1000+ page tome as a 19 year old, I found then (and continue to find) the philosophy to be gibberish, the monologues dull and repetitive, the characters ridiculous, and the plot lame. However, I do rather like her writing style and visual imagery. Frankly it's Gorky-an socialist realism, just for the other side.

Also to kibutz:



Quote:
By your definition, the government doesn't exist, since the government is supposed to have the monopoly on force. But the government does not have a monopoly on force.
While I applaud your use of valid argument forms, this argument is not sound. The argument simply shows that the government does not have a monopoly on force (using a certain definition of monopoly), not that the government does not exist.

Moreover, the fact that government does not have a monopoly on force does not mean that (in Randian fantasies) government shouldn't have a monopoly on force. Rand's understanding of government was normative, not a sociological or historical description of how governments in fact operate.

[Comrade B]

I have, no idea what this book is, and because you suggested it, I will not seek finding out what it is.

[Tablo]

The book is awful and is largely devoid of any understanding of the human condition.

[John_Jordan]

I did. He/she said he/she doesn't agree with an economists definition of a monopoly. He/she should find another definition from another economist, not from his/her ass.

Who said I got my definition from my "ass"? I disagree with Milton because there is in fact another economist whom I respect more and am inclined to take the word of.

[ChrisK]

Who said I got my definition from my "ass"? I disagree with Milton because there is in fact another economist whom I respect more and am inclined to take the word of.

And this would be?

[John_Jordan]

And this would be?

He's not famous.

[ChrisK]

He's not famous.

Well we all know you ass isn't famous.

[VientoLibre]

I read all of Atlas Shrugged, front to back. It just doesn't stand up to any other work of decent fiction or philosophy for that matter. Seriously, it's pretty bad.

[gorillafuck]

A Protagonist is the one who drives the story. The one whom we primarily follow. A protagonist can be any sort of person and be a protagonist. One doesn't have to be good to be a protagonist. Villain protagonists exist (and can be awesome).
Very true, I wasn't thinking of that.