Just wondering how many here have read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, and what you thought about it ?
More political leanings
I read it.
I totally agree with the character John Galt and understand why he did a disappearing act in the worthless society he lived in.
I think it should be required reading. They say it's the most influential book second to the bible. It definitely makes you think. I can see that someone has to pay for all the free stuff. If you have one person working to pay for six people there is a point of no return. Therefore Atlas shrugged .
Once driving down the road, I was stopped by a train. On one of the cars someone wrote " Who is John Gault" I took a picture of it. lol
I loved her book Anthem.
In my opinion, Ayn's work is a welcome aid to the ultra-wealthy who pretend to the world that they have earned what they have acquired.
The ultra-wealthy have leveraged political will to create a Flood Up Economy that automatically becomes a Feudal system of Corporate Serfdom with perceptible alacrity, they have misnamed that economic model a "Trickle Down Economy," they have deliberately conflated the terms "earning" and "income" in common usage in our language, and they now argue that everyone should be able to "keep what they earn," by which they mean, everyone should be able to keep their income whether or not they have earned it.
There is no single human on the face of planet earth that earns $1,000,000 in a single year from their work product. That person does not exist.
There are many humans who have annual incomes far in excess of $1,000,000.
Ayn focuses on the character of Galt, a working stiff, who succeeds through access to a quality education, personal innovation, personal ingenuity, a desire to better humanity, and thousands of working stiffs, much like his father, hired as laborers to manufacture his inventions, without whom, his innovations and ingenuity would be just shy of worthless, if not never sold.
I found Atlas Shrugged to be offensive to the idea of rational ethics in its myopic perspectives on personal worth.
It advances the false, ethically reprehensible idea that it does not matter how or why someone has achieved success, only whether they have done so. Galt does not care what would happen to other humans as a result of his professed "Objectivism" which is actually only a piss-poor mask for selfish vanity. He lacks the perspective required for valid Objectivism, as does every human.
It's an exceptional and indelicate conceit Rand offered, pretty to look at only until it becomes reality.
Paul Ryan is a huge fan. Really. He considers Rand's work to be a very significant influence in his life. I don't consider that a positive endorsement, but do consider that support for my perspective that Ayn has offered base conceit and vanity and gave it a lofty sounding name.
Consider: Had Galt not been the one to arrive at what the character called "Objectivism" but, instead, that concept had been arrived at and adopted 100 years earlier ... Galt would likely have never been permitted to go to University, or to have any opportunity for advancement beyond his father's garage.
Once he succeeded, personally, he adopted an ideology that permitted him to comfortably shut the door behind himself. Selfish vanity.
When I said it makes you think, in my case I found myself going back and forth in my thinking.
. We do need people who are innovators and entrepreneurs to create jobs. If someone starts a business, is it really worth it if they work 18 hours a day and are so bogged down with government rules and regulation that he ends up with very little?
Why should the innovator be labeled bad if he wants to keep his monetary reward.?Why is it selfish and bad to put yourself first. Why should you be left with less then the people who benefit from your hard work.?
Instead of hating the producers we should be thanking them ,for they are the ones creating jobs.
You can't regulate charity. Some of our top entrepreneurs give much. Oprah, W. Buffett. to name a few Just a few of my gleanings from the book......... A MUST read.
I have read it, also The Fountainhead. Agree with some, disagree with some.
Yes Dropoff, I too have read the Foutainhead. I read that one first.
Charity is all well and good, however, "earned income" does not always equal "income," no one "earns" an annual in excess of $1,000,000.00 USD, and yet, many people do receive incomes far and away in excess of this.
Does the fact that they receive this wealth mean they are the ones best suited to determine how it is spent, or should they only have that liberty with money they have actually earned?