Atlas shrugged

[bytor2112]

Atlas shrugged....

[prospectmom]

Ok I am really going to simplify this them that works eats[/B].. There is to much gimmies and not enough we can tighten our belts and do this and this...

I think we all need to think How can we do more with less and make it work

Edited March 18, 2009 by prospectmom

[NeuroTypical]

It's a great book. It should have been required reading for everyone a decade ago. Now you don't need to read it, just turn on the evening news and you can see it unfolding before you.

I'm not usually this melodramatic, but dang.

LM

[prisonchaplain]

It interests me greatly that out of a thorough-going Humanism can come both Communism and Objectivism (Libertarianism of a different stripe). Then again, conservative Republicanism and communalism have both been inspired by Christianity.

[Moksha]

If all the Iron-Randites such as John Galt could settle on that island, which adheres to the philosophy of "keep your hands off my stuff", the world be a better place. Why this has not happened is probably over the quarrel of who should own the island.

[Just_A_Guy]

Moksha, I'll let you watch the top 5% of wage-earners in the US duke it out for their pieces of Galt Island (actually a mountain enclave in Colorado, if I remember correctly), if you will let me watch the other 95% of Americans try to make their country work on 45% of its previous annual tax revenue. :)

[miztrniceguy]

I'm getting ready to read it. My wife loves the book

[a-train]

It at least appears that Americans are converting back toward freedom in a big way. I think they are, but we have a long way to go. There are still a great many who want to kill the geese the lay all the golden eggs, but a great many are starting to wonder if we should spare a few just in case the meat doesn't last forever.

-a-train

[RavinMaven]

It's a great book, but when you can show me a CEO that is as moral as Wyatt, and an industrialist that values real talent as much as Hank Reardon, instead of the "look-dad-I-got-an-Ivy-league-degree-and-now-I-run-my-own-company" folks that we have running our major corporations, then we can have this discussion.

In Atlas Shrugged, the government suffocated the talented industrialists out of existance but trying to convince them that it was their moral duty to give their creations to the state for no profit...in the world that WE are living in, the heads of corporate america cannibalized their own companies in order to maximize their personal income at the expense of their employees, and now the government is running around trying to pick up the pieces.

Not trying to ruffle anyones feathers, I am a big fan of Ayn Rands works; I just think that it is a little disingenuious to compare what is going on right now to the situation in Atlas Shrugged.

[a-train]

It's a great book, but when you can show me a CEO that is as moral as Wyatt, and an industrialist that values real talent as much as Hank Reardon, instead of the "look-dad-I-got-an-Ivy-league-degree-and-now-I-run-my-own-company" folks that we have running our major corporations, then we can have this discussion.

The only reason the madness is able to go on (think AIG), is because corporations no longer need the market to survive, they simply live on political favoritism. Instead of the government trying to convince the productive entities to give their means to the state, it simply robs them and gives assets to wealth destroying "look-dad-I-lost-$15-billion-and-I'm-still-CEO" companies.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

I have a question: How many of you would give up your faith and religion to implement Ayn Rand's strategies?

Atlas Shrugged is a huge, huge hit right now, and I can certainly understand why. Her prediction the economy would collapse because of government interference could be right on. I know the book is breaking all sales records, and I think it's because people are so frightened right now, they need something to hang on to that might be the answer.

But I wonder how many people realize that Rand did not only say the government must get out of the way. She also said the "atlesses" (my word) of the country must base their decisions on reason, which cannot exist with faith and religion.

Rand believed that faith in God shuts people off from recognizing reality, making it impossible to act within the parameters of this reality. An “atlas” must not be saddled with dogma that rejects what he sees before his very eyes.

I've followed conversations on this board, as well as others, and am surprised at the cherry picking going on. IMO, it's usually the idealogues who have jumped on the Rand bandwagon, adamantly insisting the government needs to get out of the way.

But that's as far as they go, and I'm left to wonder if they really don't know how unwavering she was about this. So again, how many of you would give up your faith to follow Rand's strategies? Because she insists you can't do both.

This is a video of Phil Donahue interviewing Rand about her beliefs regarding God, atheism, and reason.

Ayn Rand on Religion • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control

Below are quotes that explain how emphatic she was that reason was the only way to see reality, not faith or religion. If you don't want to bother reading them, they all say basically the same thing: reason and faith cannot exist together.

The deepest reason Rand saw America as moving toward statism, however, was our deteriorating respect for reason. A culture that respects reason, such as the Enlightenment culture of the 18th century, will embrace a political system that leaves men free to exercise their own reason. But for more than a century now, our intellectuals have been preaching that reason is limited, that faith is superior to reason. What’s the result?

To rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies- that one has no rational arguments to offer. Atlas Shrugged

...if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.... the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind. Atlas Shrugged

The quotes below are from an article, written at reasonline.

Liberals shrink from her defiant pro-capitalist stance, conservatives from her militant atheism, and conservatives and liberals alike from her individualism.

In its pure form, Rand's philosophy would work very well indeed if human beings were never helpless and dependent through no fault of their own.

I thought this was an interesting observation that might catch some of your attention:

Family fares even worse in Rand's universe. The virtual absence of children in her work has been noted by many critics, >snip< In a 1964 Playboy interview, Rand flatly declared that it was "immoral" to place family ties and friendship above productive work; in her fiction, family life is depicted as a stifling, soul-killing, mainly feminine swamp.

I read Atlas Shrugged thirty years ago, when I was still a member, and a believer, in the Church. I didn’t recall the plot until I just found it on the web. However, one thing I do remember was thinking she was wrong about faith.

Elphaba

[austro-libertarian]

I have a question: How many of you would give up your faith and religion to implement Ayn Rand's strategies?

Come, let us reason together...

Rand was right and wrong.

Wrong

Faith vs reason is a false dichotomy, which conveniently shifts the grounds of the argument, assuming faith must therefore be unreason before any discussion even begins.

Right

Rand's arguments only preclude the Trinitarian God of "mainstream" Christianity, i.e., her arguments do not hold weight against the LDS view of the Godhead. In fact, this is why sometimes atheists and mormons can find common ground in critiquing mainstream Christianity. The mainstream view of God (the Trinity) is "unreasonable" and unbiblical.

While Rand has been persuasive in helping others to see the evil effects of government intervention, it has come (to some) at the unfortunate cost of preaching atheism, and therefore mixing truth with error. I would also argue that Randroids don't go far enough in getting rid of government, but that is perhaps another post.

[a-train]

Faith that the sun will rise is based on sound reason, it is not dogmatically arrived at. This faith is based on experience and objective observation. One acting on behalf of their own self-interests may plan to watch the sunrise from a cliff overlooking a beach. He/she drives to the location before dawn and positions him/herself in anticipation. This act of faith would be completely congruous with Objectivist thinking and lifestyle.

Name any champion of the Enlightenment who put Reason on a pedestal. They were not athiests. Reason can lead one to believe in God. Even Thomas Paine believed in God. The faith Rand spoke against is blind faith, faith arrived at through unreasonable means. This is not the faith of the 4th Article of Faith. This sort of belief is not what Mormons seek, but what we hope to avoid.

The Book of Mormon teaches that the beginning faith is hope, or a desire to believe (Alma 32). Faith comes through experimentation (verse 27,33,36) and objective observation. Only by an objective witness can one have true faith. The basis of the faith in God among the enlightenment thinkers was such objective observation.

For a fantastic study on the subject, I highly recommend the Lectures on Faith. Look at the lecture sixth. It is clear that a knowledge of God and his will obtained through objective means is necessary for the faith in him unto eternal life.

"Having treated in the preceding lectures of the ideas of the character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation."

The faith in Christ of which Joseph Smith taught was not the sort that defies reason, but the sort that rests on it. The lecture second makes that quite clear as its subject is the object upon which faith rests.

-a-train

Edited March 25, 2009 by a-train

[Moksha]

However, one thing I do remember was thinking she was wrong about faith.

Elphaba

Elphaba, couldn't we work around this by making ultra-conservatism, coupled with libertarian anarchy a requirement for the Duty to God award?

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, couldn't we work around this by making ultra-conservatism, coupled with libertarian anarchy a requirement for the Duty to God award?

Does it come with a patch?

Besides, I think I'm too old, and shaped wrong, to get a Duty to God award.

Maybe I'm wrong. Do they give a Duty to God award for going into a china shop and not breaking anything with my big butt? If so, I'm there.

And I want a patch!

Elphaba

[a-train]

I'll never understand how the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' have come to be so obscured.

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

I'll never understand how the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' have come to be so obscured.

-a-train

You're right, A-train. It does seem strange that Libertarians, who want a form of taxation and government that has essentially never been tried before in the history of man, would be termed 'Conservative' while those who want what all of Europe has and has had for decades are called 'Liberal'.

Maybe it has to do with the social values associated with those mores? People who tend to fall towards the radical economic platform espoused by the libertarian movement tend more towards conservative, values based thinking rather than those who tend towards the European model. That model tends to attract a more allowing viewpoint.

Or it could be that your economic viewpoint is termed 'Conservative' because the spending is reduced, thus 'conserving' funds for the future while under the other model, spending is 'liberal'.

Either one could be the issue. Actually, when I term it like that, I have a prickling in my conscience that suggests something is wrong there. It almost feels like values voters are deliberately being fractionalized and marginalized by splitting them down the middle. Hmm... I'm going to have to think on that: Both sides can claim moral values economically. Is it possible that splitting values voters down economic lines is an attempt to strip their power base?

[a-train]

Conservatism and liberalism were not defined by moral thinking, one being so and the other being not so. They both claim to be moral. Classical conservatism arose in response to the rise of liberalism. Liberalism rejects the notion that government is necessary to upkeep the welfare of the individual. Classical liberals wanted LESS government MORE individual freedom. Conservatives rose to defend the monarchical state. Liberalism sees the moral policy in the liberation of the individual from oppressive government, conservatism sees a need to protect the individual from their own propensity to evil and self-destructive behavior.

The United States never had the monarchy. The whole system was based on liberalism. Hamiltonianism which advocated a stronger central government, a central bank based on the English model, a national debt, protective tariffs, a standing national military, and a sort of mercantilist nationalist mindset became known as American conservatism. It was essentially England without Great Britain.

The first major party associated with American conservatism was the Federalist party. The liberals, known also as Jeffersonians (after Thomas Jefferson) rallied around the Democratic-Republican Party (which evolved to the modern Democratic Party which is baffling).

In the Jacksonian era, liberalism dominated the American political scene. The Federalist Party evaporated. The Jacksonian liberals abolished the Bank of the United States and bridled protectionism. The Republican Party came into being later with Abraham Lincoln, a staunch federalist thinker following in the footsteps of Hamilton.

The liberal South resisted the growing power of the federal thinkers. It was not until the Civil Rights era that the South, the backbone of the Democratic Party, converted to the Republican Party. It is said that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act he said: "We have lost the south for a generation".

It was somewhere at the turn of the 20th Century though when liberalism became known as conservatism and conservatism became known as liberalism. George Bush was a true conservative. He liked a big expensive government that marches around the world inflicting the will of the White House on foreign nations while intruding deeply into the lives of the people at home. That said, President Obama is not much different from that. The movement they are in is more commonly called "neo-conservatism".

-a-train

Edited March 26, 2009 by a-train

[Elphaba]

Come, let us reason together...

We'll see.

Are you going to reject your faith in order to reason? If you want to talk about Rand, you may have to suspend your beliefs for a moment and try to see things from her point-of-view.

While you and many others here rely on your faith, Rand did not. Rather, she despised people who used faith to make proclamations. It was anathema to her, because she believed "reason" was the only method for success.

She also believed that the successful person must also be an atheist who is not bound to any faith whatsoever, for plans and solutions must be based on reason, not faith.

Rand was right and wrong.

I have no opinion regarding her being right or wrong. I am explaining what she believed about religion/faith and reason.

Faith vs reason is a false dichotomy, which conveniently shifts the grounds of the argument, assuming faith must therefore be unreason before any discussion even begins.

Again, I have no opinion on this. I’m relating what Rand believed about faith.

Right

Rand's arguments only preclude the Trinitarian God of "mainstream" Christianity,

No, they do not in that she does not preclude any religion from her beliefs.

Frankly, I doubt she even knew what the Trinitarian God was, because she spent no time with religion. To her, to do so would have been a complete waste of her time, which incensed her.

Her belief that faith was a complete waste of time was not limited to Christianity. It could have been the Church of the Great Pubah, and she would have despised its adherents as well. As long as the belief was in something supernatural, she had nothing but disdain for it and rejected it out of hand.

, her arguments do not hold weight against the LDS view of the Godhead.

So what? We're discussing what Rand believed, not the Church.

Another example: Someone could worship the Great White Buffalo in the Sky, and he would say Rand’s arguments do not hold weight against the Buffalo’s version of the universe.

Again, she would have been exasperated, and very unhappy with this person's choices. And this mattered a great deal to Rand's cult followers.

It would never matter to Rand what religion you had faith in: Rand despised anyone wasting his/her time on “faith” in the supernatural. If she saw someone expressing a faith in a supernatural deity, including Christianity's God, she would have held that person in great disdain.

While Rand has been persuasive in helping others to see the evil effects of government intervention, it has come (to some) at the unfortunate cost of preaching atheism, and therefore mixing truth with error. I would also argue that Randroids don't go far enough in getting rid of government, but that is perhaps another post.

Atlas Shrugged has become an instant phenomenon, selling more books in a week than it ever did while she was still alive.

But here’s the problem: People who jump on the Rand band-wagon do so by cherry picking her teachings that mirror their own, but reject those that do not.

You’re doing the same thing here. You’re criticizing Rand’s atheism, yet, Rand’s philosophies are nothing without her atheism.

She was, admittedly, extremely arrogant about this, which was in keeping with all aspects of her personality. Sometimes I find it odd that everyone thinks she is so prophetic, when, in fact, there were many things she insisted were going to happen, but didn't.

She loved her notoriety, including her arrogance. This helps explain her rigid atheism, with no regard for other people's faith and beliefs. But if you want to use Ayn Rand's beliefs as example, you have to include her atheism in your deliberations.

So, c'mon and let's reason together.

Find me one example of Rand accepting her faith in any religion. And when you can't find one, watch the video I linked. I doubt you can find a better illustration of what she believes about people's faiths, and even more illustrative of how she perceived these faiths to be a complete waste of time . . . and reason.

And if you do find one, go find another, because the first one will be a fluke.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I found another interview of Rand. It is from 1959, and Mike Wallace is interviewing her.

It's hilarious to see Wallace light up a cigarette on television.

The interview is in three parts;

discusses her basic philosophy that faith has no part in Objectivism, and that only reason can be relied on to be successful.

discusses the issues people have brought up here on the board, no government intrusion, laissez faire, etc.

is a little of both.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

But here’s the problem: People who jump on the Rand band-wagon do so by cherry picking her teachings that mirror their own, but reject those that do not.

Do they contradict themselves? Very well then, they contradict themselves . . .

(That was an awesome signature, by the way. What happened to it?)

[Elphaba]

Hey a,

Before I respond to your comments, I want to be very clear that I do not believe in Rand's philosophies at all. I am just putting them up because so many people are only using an isolated factor, but not the whole picture, when her comprehensive beliefs are much larger than the political.

Regarding your comments below, when I respond, it is based on my knowledge of Ayn Rand, including how she would respond. Thus, they are not what I believe, but, to the best of my knowledge, what Rand believed.

The exception is where I respond to your comments about the founding fathers. Those comments are mine, not Rand's.

Faith that the sun will rise is based on sound reason, it is not dogmatically arrived at. This faith is based on experience and objective observation. One acting on behalf of their own self-interests may plan to watch the sunrise from a cliff overlooking a beach. He/she drives to the location before dawn and positions him/herself in anticipation. This act of faith would be completely congruous with Objectivist thinking and lifestyle.

You say you know, based on faith, that the sun will come up each morning.

But it isn't faith; rather, it's an observed fact that takes no faith to believe it was rise.

Name any champion of the Enlightenment who put Reason on a pedestal. They were not athiests. Reason can lead one to believe in God. Even Thomas Paine believed in God.

They all put reason on a pedestal. That is what the Age of Enlightenment was all about: reason v. faith.

For example, during a very frustrating time during a heat wave in July, the delegates were extremely weary and ready to give up. Benjamin Franklin suggested they pray to God for help.

Everyone's response? No.

The critical philosophy of the enlightenment was that God did not interfere in man's business. In fact, once BF was told no, he replied something to the effect that he didn't why he had even suggested it, because he thought it was wrong as well.

You are correct they were not atheists, but they were not Christians either. It's easier to say they were deists, but as is everything in life, that is too simple for a comprehensive picture of all of their religious beliefs. But they each held their particular beliefs very close, knowing their efforts would ensure all men (not women yet), could do the same, regardless of his religion.

The faith Rand spoke against is blind faith, faith arrived at through unreasonable means. This is not the faith of the 4th Article of Faith. This sort of belief is not what Mormons seek, but what we hope to avoid.

The Book of Mormon teaches that the beginning faith is hope, or a desire to believe (Alma 32). Faith comes through experimentation (verse 27,33,36) and objective observation. Only by an objective witness can one have true faith. The basis of the faith in God among the enlightenment thinkers was such objective observation.

For a fantastic study on the subject, I highly recommend the Lectures on Faith. Look at the lecture sixth. It is clear that a knowledge of God and his will obtained through objective means is necessary for the faith in him unto eternal life.

"Having treated in the preceding lectures of the ideas of the character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation."

The faith in Christ of which Joseph Smith taught was not the sort that defies reason, but the sort that rests on it. The lecture second makes that quite clear as its subject is the object upon which faith rests.

Again, I can only respond the way I think Rand would have.

Frankly, I think you could have God visit her to prove He exists, and she would think she was hallucinating or something, rather than admit it was God. I don't necessarily disagree with her, but I would be willing to look at the evidence.

I don't think Rand would have done the same.

Elphaba

[Dravin]

But it isn't faith; rather, it's an observed fact that takes no faith to believe it was rise.

He has never seen the sun rise tomorrow, he has seen it in the past, that is something observed, trusting that it will tomorrow and acting upon that is faith. Scientists, even athiests are chock full of faith. I don't know a single one that has performed every experiement to confirm every principle they operate on at some point they have faith that Scientist So-an-So was right. Heck, how many people take it on faith that 1 + 1 = 2. There is a proof out there for it but I imagine most don't use it.

Thing is this is a semantics game (aren't those fun ), if you define faith as a beleif in and acting upon something you haven't observed (such as the sun rising tomorrow, the light turning on when you flip the switch even though you've not flipped it yet, Argentina being real, ect.) then its faith, if you define it as something which excludes that it isn't.

I kinda see where both sides are coming from. *shrug*

[a-train]

I found another interview of Rand. It is from 1959, and Mike Wallace is interviewing her.

It's hilarious to see Wallace light up a cigarette on television.

The interview is in three parts;

discusses her basic philosophy that faith has no part in Objectivism, and that only reason can be relied on to be successful.

discusses the issues people have brought up here on the board, no government intrusion, laissez faire, etc.

is a little of both.

Elphaba

I watch this interview every couple of months or so. Love it! There's a Donahue (he's antimormon) one also.

-a-train

[a-train]

You say you know, based on faith, that the sun will come up each morning.

But it isn't faith; rather, it's an observed fact that takes no faith to believe it was rise.

See, this is what I am trying to point out. Joseph Smith's use of the term 'faith' was different from most religious teachers. I do NOT say that one "knows based on faith" that the sun will come up each morning. A person can NOT know anything by faith! That is ridiculous. That is nonsense. That is completely incongruent with Joseph Smith's teachings (see the lectures on faith).

A person believes the sun will rise because of objective observation. This takes no faith whatsoever, just as you said. Acting in anticipation of the rising of the sun is faith. Driving to a location to watch it rise is an act of faith. Suppose it does NOT rise, this does NOT make the act of driving to watch it any less an act of faith.

It takes no faith to admit that planting a corn seed will yield corn. One can deduce this through the application of reason upon objective observations, but to plant the seed in anticipation of such a yield is faith. If it doesn NOT so yield because of bad weather, the act of cultivation was no less faithful.

I know my wife exists. I don't need to muster up some 'faith' to believe she is out there. I have through objective observation long ago determined that she exists. But when she calls me and asks me to meet her somewhere, my drive to that location in anticipation of seeing her there is faith, faith in my wife. It is also faith in my car and a host of other things.

Faith is the means by which man acts. Every single action man has ever done, was an act of faith.

One of the foolish fallacies put out about faith is that real faith can never amount to failure. That is utter nonsense. You can extend your hand and stroke the keys of your keyboard in good faith that you are sending me a message through the lds.net forum. But this act of faith does NOT gaurantee that I will get that message. A server failure, a power outage, a computer freeze, or any number of things could prevent your post from posting. This does NOT mean your typing was any less an act of faith.

Another ridiculous claim is that faith alone alters reality externally. The idea would suggest that if I truly believe in my heart that a troll is under my bed, there will be one. This foolish idea would make every lie true so long as someone believes it. Outrageous!

However, faith does shape the world in which we live. Our computer was built by the works of faith. Likewise was every item we possess. Every act of man is done by faith.

Faith is a function of a time-bound being. You cannot know the future, not even by one second. Each step you take is an act of faith that you will realize a movement forward. However, your faith and your effort do not gaurantee this movement.

James E. Talmage said that belief is to faith as knowledge is to wisdom. To know something, but to not act accordingly is unwise. So also it is unfaithful to not act upon our beliefs.

Suppose you see something that looks like a coin in a parking lot. From your position you cannot determine with certainty that it is a coin. You approach it and pick it up. This is an act of faith. But not an act of faith that it is a coin, rather that your actions will determine whether it is a coin or not. Upon holding it in your hands and examining it, you discover it is a quarter and you put it in your pocket. Your act of faith brought knowledge and your reaction to this new knowledge is your wisdom.

I don't think Rand argued against any of this. She argued against the kind of foolish notions of 'faith' that Joseph Smith disavowed just the same.

Do you see the difference? Am I clear as mud?

Frankly, I think you could have God visit her to prove He exists, and she would think she was hallucinating or something, rather than admit it was God. I don't necessarily disagree with her, but I would be willing to look at the evidence.

Ah, but if she truly practices Objectivism, she would be compelled to have objective observations to support reason that would suggest the appearance of God was a hallucination. By the Objectivist philosophy, the appearance and communication of God would be viewed no differently than the appearance and communication of President Obama or any other.

-a-train

Edited March 27, 2009 by a-train