You find history rife with such, companies shutting down product lines in order to sell some other product, or to kill off a market which competed with their desires, only to have one step into that place. Ponder the auto industry a moment. When a company ends production of a popular model with high demand, aftermarket firms step in to continue the work, as demonstrated by the various kits based on the AC Cobra or Lamborghini Countach.
Or when it is something more simple, like basic transportation, while the VW Bug was the low-cost basic transportation from decades past, today you would be more likely to find a Tata Nano or Kia Rio taking that same spot in the consumption pool, the original companies holding the spot abandoning the position. That is the market, niches to fill and when a company abandons its position in that niche, someone will come to fill it.
It is described as self-sufficient, but how could it do that? Did Mr Galt build all of the roadways and pathways needed by himself? Of course not. The cost of the endeavor is staggering, especially then the support costs for these giants of industry who suddenly could go from being bank managers or auto executives to being able to build their own homes using only the resources they had available. How do she expect it to even work? Simply put, it was a farce. Those which espouse the philosophy of Ms.
Rand have time and again proven themselves dangerous, for they believe that the business is the key to the market. This inversion of the nature of the market instead breeds corruption, and collapse, undermining the supports needed for the market to function. This is why when the focus is, instead, on the worker, which then expand the consumer base, the market works so much smoother.
This is why in the 's, we could support dozens of airlines, multiple automobile manufacturers, both fast food as well as mom and pop restaurants.
Because the focus was on the consumer, the middle class worker. When the elite disappear on strike , their trusted assistants are left behind to bear the misfortune of the rest of the poor slobs. These magic things were, of course, invented by the intelligent elite who use them to help wreak havoc and despair on the rest of the million people of the country in order to punish the evil government.
Dagny Taggart, the heroine and only intelligent woman in the universe, has sex with three of the elite.
She dumps the only real relationship with Rearden in favor of the demi-god John Galt who she barely knows along the lines of a teenage girl throwing herself at one of the Beatles. Her favorite encounters are sado-masochistic. They think the only path to change is to take their football and go home. You have to wonder how brilliant these people really are.
The author spends great quantities of print describing and re-describing thoughts and feelings of the characters ad nauseum. The redundancy is overwhelming. This poor attempt at science fiction with a supposed moral message demonstrates how a page book can be padded to become a page behemoth.
Elitists, libertarians and others paranoid about the government will undoubtedly enjoy this book. Paramilitary groups will love it. View all 24 comments. Sep 28, Nandakishore Mridula rated it did not like it Shelves: general-fiction. I read this book as a teenager while recovering from a long bout of viral fever which had left me bedridden for almost a month: I had exhausted all my other books and forced to rummage through old shelves in my house.
Ironically, I read The Grapes of Wrath also at the same time. My teenage mind was captivated by the "dangerous" ideas proposed by Ayn Rand. At that time, India was having an inefficient "mixed" economy comprising all the negative aspects of capitalism and socialism, and Ms. Rand I read this book as a teenager while recovering from a long bout of viral fever which had left me bedridden for almost a month: I had exhausted all my other books and forced to rummage through old shelves in my house.
Rand seemed to point a way out of the quagmire. Almost thirty years hence, I find the novel if it can be called that - Ayn Rand's idea of fiction is a bunch of pasteboard characters put there as her mouthpieces to be silly beyond imagination. The premise is laughable; the characters entirely forgettable; and the writing, abyssmal. The idea that governments governing the least and allowing a "winner-take-all" economy to flourish will solve all the world's woes "Social Darwinism", a word I've heard used to describe her philosophy will not wash anywhere today, I would wager - even with the hard-core adherents of the GOP in the USA.
Especially when we look at Europe, where capitalism has gone into a downward spiral. Rand, sorry to say, Atlas didn't shrug: Atlas collapsed! View all 30 comments. Apr 13, Monica MizMiz rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Any reader interested in philosophy or just a good story. Shelves: favoritesforpleasurereading. The Concept: Rand follows the lives of society's movers and shakers first-handers, in her words, and business men, scientists, inventors, and artists in her novel as they resist the societal pull to become second-handers and to remain true to themselves and their live's work.
Meanwhile, something is happening that is shaking the very foundation of society. Applying Rand's ideas t The Concept: Rand follows the lives of society's movers and shakers first-handers, in her words, and business men, scientists, inventors, and artists in her novel as they resist the societal pull to become second-handers and to remain true to themselves and their live's work.
Applying Rand's ideas to my own life has made my mind clearer and has helped me to acchieve goals I thought were unreachable. Rand's ideas have been a big part of "growing up" and getting through the "quarter life crisis" for me.
While I read Rand's books for her ideas and to better understand the application of her philosophy, they can also be read on many different levels. Through reading them, not only did I read an amazing story, carefully crafted and well rendered, but I also learned so much.
However, one does not have to delve deep into Rand's philosophical background to enjoy The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged -- they are also great stories about human endurance, individualism, freedom, relationships, and integrity. The Fountainhead is a more straight forward place to start that study.
I highly recommend this book, and I have a copy to loan if you're interested. When you're reading, we can go out for coffee to talk about the book -- there is much to think about in this one. View all 7 comments. May 30, Ken rated it did not like it Shelves: fiction , masochism.
This book was the most overrated piece of crap of the twentieth century. It spars only with Dianetics and in its absolute absurdity. The characters are absolutely idealized 'heroes of capitalism' action figures. I wonder if Rand imagined some of these great barons of industry coming to her rescue when she immigrated away from the vile pit of communism that she left behind.
You know, during the time where she forged her citizenship papers and depended on the generocity and kindness of a liberal, o This book was the most overrated piece of crap of the twentieth century. You know, during the time where she forged her citizenship papers and depended on the generocity and kindness of a liberal, open society.
If only she had us all her irritating, long winded, repetative tales of woe for the monied class of brilliantly handsome, powerful super geniuses. She bases all of this on her objectivist claptrap, claiming rationality as her own private high ground.
But this is a general critique of her works. Specifically this book is completely overwritten and serves as flak cover for all the wrong people. The Jack Welch's and Phil Knights that imagine themselves to be the heroes of this book.
This book has done more to create a generation of self interested greedy mindless zombies than any other book I can think of. View all 11 comments. Feb 23, Ian "Marvin" Graye rated it liked it. In this novel, she dramatizes the shortcomings of her unique Objectivist philosophy through an intellectual mystery story and magical mystery tour that intertwines sex, ethics, sex, metaphysics, sex, epistemology, sex, politics, "Shagged at Last The Sequel " Written while she was still alive, but published posthumously after her death in , "Shagged At Last" is the posthumous sequel to Ayn Rand's greatest achievement and last work of fiction, "Atlas Shrugged" not counting "Shagged At Last".
In this novel, she dramatizes the shortcomings of her unique Objectivist philosophy through an intellectual mystery story and magical mystery tour that intertwines sex, ethics, sex, metaphysics, sex, epistemology, sex, politics, sex, economics, sex, whatever and sex. Reconsidering her worldview, she concludes that, in order to be truly beneficial to society individuals, sex must not be just the fun bit between the serious parts, it requires serious love action between the private parts.
In this sequel which is the equal of the prequel to the sequel , Ayn Rand abandons Objectivism and embraces Sex Activism, without endorsing either Active Sexism or Subjectivism.
Where Have All the Objectivists Gone? Set in the near-future [30 years after the time of writing in ] in a U. Spoiler If you want to know who the female protagonist has deep and meaningless sex with, read the book or open the following spoiler at your own peril to avoid disappointment, don't view the spoiler. Anyway, read the book. Disclaimer: The televisualisation of the hysterical perspective is currently subject to the formalisation of contractual relations with Manny and Jessica Rabbit.
View all 66 comments. May 06, Amy rated it it was amazing. After working on this book for several months, I finally finished it and loved it. I've learned that I rate a book highly when it forces me to think and broadens my perspective. Rand definitely accomplishes this in Atlas Shrugged and earns five stars. I am amazed at the depth of her philosophy, her intelligence, and her ability to write and communicate her ideas through strong, entertaining fictional characters.
In Atlas Shrugged, she shares her philosophy which she calls Objectivism, which in a After working on this book for several months, I finally finished it and loved it.
In Atlas Shrugged, she shares her philosophy which she calls Objectivism, which in a word is a system of justice. Before reading this book, I always viewed justice as cold, distant, and inferior to mercy, but Rand helps me view the essentiality and virtues of justice. In a few other words, Rand is an advocate of reason, logic, accountability, production, capitalism, agency, human ability, and she believes that working for one's happiness is essential and each person's personal responsilibity.
She is against pity, mediocrity, taxation, seizing wealth and production from those who produce to redistribute to those who are unwilling to work hard. In the story, she illustrates what would happen to the world if incentive to produce is removed from the intelligent and able - the motor of the world would stop.
I love how Rand's character Dagny Taggart is such an example of intelligence and ability. She will move heaven and earth to accomplish her purposes and she approaches life with such passion. She runs the leading transcontinental railroad in the country, and Rand created this character in the 's!
Despite my love of the book, there were a few drawbacks for me. Rand believes that one's professional work, what he is able to produce, is THE purpose of life, definitely a "live to work" approach. Also, I didn't find any thread of mercy in her philosophy, which makes me wonder her view on caring for those who cannot care for themselves.
Rand also has a sexual theme that emerges several times in the book which I didn't know I was in for when I began the book. Be forewarned that it's there, and she has a strong theory on sexuality that you'll be exposed to in reading the book. Reading Atlas Shrugged reminded and empowered me to work hard for what I want in life, to stop making excuses, and to hold myself accountable and responsible for what I do or don't acoomplish.
View 2 comments. Jul 03, Lyn rated it liked it. Atlas Shrugged is a flawed epic, strident with a swaggering ambition, yet almost fable-like in its overly simplistic social and economic criticisms. This is more of a philosophical, social commentary than a literary monument. The characterization is where it fails; Rand draws stick figures for antagonists: caricatures, strawmen to act as foil to her politico-economic-social vehicle.
This is the book that made everyone mad in the late fifties: progressive liberals were spurned due to its vitrioli Atlas Shrugged is a flawed epic, strident with a swaggering ambition, yet almost fable-like in its overly simplistic social and economic criticisms.
As provocative and controversial as it is, I wondered at the society that had produced Rand and marveled at the influence she had on our culture since its publication. I have read many controversial books, and have wondered how many critics have actually read the work; Atlas Shrugged makes me wonder how many fans have actually read it.
The length? Rand forces her readers to be submerged, to live in the dystopian wasteland for two or three months to fully comprehend her vision. Finally I am left with a feeling, an assurance, that I do not like Ms. Rand and don't care for her arrogance and her casual dismissal of much of what is good in society.
Apr 05, Whitaker marked it as never-ever-to-read-ever. A Modest Proposal I'd give this book 10 stars, but it only gets five, because really, Ayn didn't have the courage of her convictions. The problem with Atlas Shrugged is that it doesn't go far enough. And so, to correct that, here's an addendum, a modest proposal to supplement Ayn's book.
We're taxing the wrong people. Why are we taxing rich people more than poor people? Rich people don't need government services. If they want a hig A Modest Proposal I'd give this book 10 stars, but it only gets five, because really, Ayn didn't have the courage of her convictions.
If they want a highway, they'll build it themselves. If they need electricity, they'll build a god damn dam. It's poor people that need the government to build these things for them. This will encourage those lazy bums at the bottom to slave for rich people. After all, it's by slaving away and working hard for them that they can eventually become rich too. It's coddling them otherwise. Why this tax structure? It's logical isn't it? Ergo, the more money they have, the more jobs they will create.
They are the Job Creators! Instead of taxing them we should be eternally thankful to them for even Existing. Without them, we'd all be living in mud huts and eating each other to stay alive. Why, just their very presence in a country will mean that its inhabitants will get rich. How much should we pay? Obviously, the answer is to let the Market decide: governments should bid against each other in an open auction.
Highest bidder wins. And clearly this has to be done as often as the Rich People want to change their country of residence. After all, you can't expect them to just stay in one country all their life. That would be a Fetter on Market Forces! Cypress giving them grief? Hell, don't go to the UK! We'll pay GBP1 trillion AND sweeten it with a line of grateful poor people lying down at the landing strip for them to walk over so that they don't soil their gold Gucci shoes on our unworthy soil.
Well, nothing's too good for them. No point offering them money since they make more than what any country can offer anyway. See a law they don't like? Governments will change it for them. See laws that need to be put in place? Governments had damn well vote them in if they know what's good for them. Oh, and that nonsense about power corrupting doesn't apply to Rich Job Creators. That Invisible Hand will come down and smack them upside down if they try anything funny.
We don't need governments. Governments are for those rotten horrible poor people. They wouldn't dream of selling fraudulent financial instruments, or food that poisons you, or buildings that collapse, or lie about the value of their companies. Nobody would buy their products if they did that you see.
It's only when Big Brother Governments intervene that such things happen. It's only when Big Brother Governments that think they know better and force them to obey laws --booooooo! All hail Rich People! Without Them, life would be just shit. Civilisation Would Not Exist! Update 20 Jan You think this review is just kidding around? Fact is, we already live in an Atlas Shrugged world: In a world of 7 billion and more, 85 people 0. Think about it, if YOU became that rich and that powerful, once you got there, why WOULDN'T you do everything you could to make sure the rest would stay there and not pose a threat to your wealth?
Ayn Rand would be SO proud. View all 10 comments. If you're into sprawling, barely coherent I-are-mighty anti-Communist rants then this is for you. I suppose in our moments of weakness, we can look to Ayn Rand's philosophy to bring out our inner-super-humans.
Except that really it's just a polarized response to Marx and Lenin whom I have found equally unpalatable. What's that? You want me to separate the aesthetic elements from the philosophy? Sure thing. This book reads like an instruction manual for drawing right angles. View all 13 comments. Oct 30, Trevor I sometimes get notified of comments rated it did not like it Shelves: philosophy , literature. It was written by a kind of agrarian Socialist, I guess. In the book he shows how grossly unfair the current social situation is and proposes a utopian village where people will be able to live in a kind of commune, where each person will contribute to the common labour of the village, and will be rewarded according to the work that they do.
I thought as I was reading it that it was interesting how these sorts of novels really had had their time at the end of the 19th century — with their Owen-like visions of brave new worlds. Do people write novels about socialist utopias now? Do people still go off to Paraguay to set up communes?
Well, this book is a right wing version of these utopian communes. It is just in this case it is the businessmen and the great scientists who go on strike until they are allowed to finally be rewarded according to the true worth of their contribute to society. This is a book of inversions and strawmen. This is repeated throughout the novel, maybe 20 times, you are certainly not meant to have missed it — but it is always used as an excuse by those with a death mentality so as to excuse the fact that they live from the appropriated productivity, brilliance and wisdom of the supermen industrialists.
The fact that Marx believed work was the highest human virtue, that he said those who do not work should not eat, that his conception of morality was that people create the world through their labour and that this is the sole source of all value, moral and physical, in the world — none of this is mentioned in the strawman that is built.
And Marx is not the only strawmen. The only Christians that could feel comfortable reading this book would be that particularly US version, the Prosperity Christian. In the world of this book, humanity is divided into two distinct groups. One group is the great mass of us, and we are mostly parasites.
We are good at following orders, but only because we refuse to think for ourselves. When confronted by a new or novel problem that is not contained within a standard protocol we have learnt or can refer to, we are immediately crushed and incapable of any form of action and particularly not risk taking. This is what divides us from our betters, the Supermen. They would rather act than be delayed for a moment in their grand desire to transform the world in their own image. They are the great artists — the world is their canvas — the will to power is the creative gesture that they deploy and make the rest of us gape upon in wonderment.
Where a challenge stops the rest of us in our tracks, risk is but another obstacle on the path to their foretold greatness.
And this world would be fine, except that we cannot be contented with allowing these gods among us to exercise their greatness. No, instead we have created life draining moral precepts to keep these gods in their place and to force them to dedicate their lives to meeting our needs and our wants at their expense. This is all straight Nietzsche, of course. It is hard to know if you are meant to read this novel as a work of political philosophy or as a kind of cheap novel. As a novel it is breathless soap opera.
They are socially inept, trapped in loveless marriages and with families who do not understand them, or even try to understand them.
They are unable to understand why they are expected to meet various obligations that they are otherwise completely uninterested in. But if the main characters are incapable of empathy, this reflects the lack of empathy the author struggles with for anyone that is not one of her supermen. The only slightly three-dimensional characters in the book are these supermen — everyone else is a two-dimensional cartoon character who are only in the book for what they represent — which is invariably an obstacle placed in the way of the Supermen to help them learn both their own true nature and the true nature of the society they need to tear down and rebuild anew.
He says later, in a conversation about the speech that it went for three hours — it certainly felt like it as I was reading it. I kept thinking, can she really believe this would convince anyone? There are no debates in this book — there is no discussion.
There is the truth and lies — and each speaks past the other. This is a book of certainty. I need to come back to sex. Each of the Supermen want to have sex with the sole Superwoman in the book, our main character in the novel. And each does have sex with her.
But the sex is always initiated by the men while she submits, a passive receptacle of his desire and his lust. There is even a scene where the female lead is lying in a bed, in the room next to the man she wants to screw next, but although she is nearly driven insane by desire, she remains lying on her bed, her hands pressed deep into the mattress to stop herself rushing to the object of her desire, struggling to contain her overwhelming passion.
The purple prose in this book is, I have to say, nothing if not amusing. But I was curious to see what a novel written by someone pushing these ideas might look like. And now I know. The good guys are superheroes — flying planes into impossible landings, sticking it to the man, fixing the unfixable, knowing when to take risks and for those risks always to pay off.
The bad guys are infinitely bad, and invariably reduced to silence by the least word from one of these Supermen. Still, the melodrama is turned up to eleven here, and the whole way through, every damn page. In fact, I kept wondering how there could still be so much left in this book when crisis after crisis seemed to imply we would need to be nearly at the end, surely, nearly at the end now. This is a capitalist utopia of aggressive selfishness — who could have guessed that could become the basis of an entire, very, very long novel?
View all 14 comments. Diane What a well written review! I suspect this review is a much better read than the book it critiques. Oct 20, picoas picoas rated it did not like it Shelves: If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review. The idea that people will work if they receive some benefit is true. The expectation that others should do the same is perfectly normal. I don't expect to be enslaved and neither do I expect others to be enslaved to me.
Also, government from the beginning of time, had to ensure that collectivel If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review. Also, government from the beginning of time, had to ensure that collectively certain work was done for the good of the collective.
That 'service' was often a respected duty in a small community - whether it be defending the territory or being responsible in the use of shared resources. Aug 12, Duane rated it really liked it Shelves: rated-books , reviewed-books.
Who is John Galt? Actually, I think he may be alive and well, and residing in the US Senate this very minute. I hate to accuse anyone directly, but I think he may even be from my own state. Metaphorically speaking of course, because he has many imitators around the world. When I read a book I usually try to seperate the writers personal views and opinions from the novel and read it for what it is, a work of fiction.
That's hard to do with Ayn Rand, especially this book, because she hammers you with them in every paragraph. The 99 percenters are trying to feed off the genius and success of the 1 percenters". I didn't like the agenda put forth in this book, but I gave it 4 stars because when it comes to putting pen to paper, Ayn Rand could write.
She just didn't write what I want to hear. I also gave it 4 stars because it's important for us to pay attention. This book has had, and still does have, a huge influence on millions of people.
When Modern Library selected their best novels of the 20th century Atlas Shrugged wasn't on the list, but they also allowed readers to vote and select their favorite novel. Atlas Shrugged was number one. That might have given us a little hint why someone like Trump could be elected president. I read this book in about It was the must read book of the day among my group of quasi-whatever we were not intellectuals of any persuasion I might add and I struggled through it to the bitter end, telling anyone who would listen that it was the most important book of the century.
Yeah, like I would know this at the tender age of 20?! What it was, was BIG - and something pages - and while I was quite adept at posing with book in hand and able to quote some John Galt verbatim, I reall I read this book in about What it was, was BIG - and something pages - and while I was quite adept at posing with book in hand and able to quote some John Galt verbatim, I really understood absolutely nothing about the incredibly selfish philosophy of Objectivism. This book of essential reading was as dry as a dead dingo's donger and just as interesting.
In later years, as I read and studied more, I came to realise just what Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Brand were on about and Atlas Shrugged became a personal memento of the shallow crassness of me and my youthful peers in the late fifties and early sixties. View all 59 comments. Jan 15, J. Keely marked it as to-avoid. Based on everything I've heard about Rand, in conversation and online, from her supporters and her detractors, or in interviews with the author or articles by her, I feel there is no reason to believe that this book or any of her others contain anything that is worth reading, not even as 'cautionary example'.
Nothing about it sounds the least bit appealing or reasoned. Watching interviews of Rand, herself, I wonder if she wasn't somewhere on the autism spectrum--her entire Objectivist philosophy Based on everything I've heard about Rand, in conversation and online, from her supporters and her detractors, or in interviews with the author or articles by her, I feel there is no reason to believe that this book or any of her others contain anything that is worth reading, not even as 'cautionary example'.
Watching interviews of Rand, herself, I wonder if she wasn't somewhere on the autism spectrum--her entire Objectivist philosophy seems like the sort of approach autistic people have to develop to deal with a world full of emotions, sympathies, and signals they cannot recognize or comprehend. The fact that this philosophy has since been picked up by Silicon Valley culture, itself notorious for high levels of autism, seems logically to follow. Likewise, it would have an appeal for certain types of sociopaths, who also do not feel strong sympathy or emotional connection.
Objectivism can thus be seen as a kind of justification for the lives they choose to leave: isolating themselves, putting work and financial achievement above social life, using others to get ahead, then blaming them for being emotionally open, and hence susceptible to manipulation.
Why is that suddenly something I didn't build nor deserve to reap reward from? Maybe your readers should ask, whom [sic] are they to take the fruits of my labors? Is not creating jobs a form of sharing wealth? I will gladly rebut anyone whom [see above] wished. One man said no and all of Rome trembled?
I am no afraid to stand my ground That capable people may choose to disengage from what they experience as an exploitative society or government is not merely the realm of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Recently an Italian court convicted six of the country's seismologists and leading national disaster staff for manslaughter for having failed to predict 's L'Aquila earthquake which killed more than people.
One visible response was the immediate resignation of several scientific and national leaders The more significant, and I believe insidious, response is that a number of scientists that I know directly have decided never to offer a clear opinion on anything to the government or in an official capacity.
In a recent European Commission and European Union summit it was clear that a general "stepping back from clarity" is underway in parts of the science community. Will there be an earthquake tomorrow?
This is not unlike Rand's portrayal of the act of desperation by those abused by predatory societies. John Galt was still there, but he was laboring in the underground railway not designing engines of the future.
Italian scientists still have the greatest insight on their areas of expertise, but the choose not to utter them. There is another approach in such cases, to blame oneself for the abuse by others, always working harder to earn their fairness. The progressive income tax system was designed to scale the punishment of the individual with their financial accomplishments in life.
Many have withdrawn their capital from this system just as John Galt withdrew his mind. Likewise, a business owner who may come to feel crushed by "Obamacare" or other majority of voters take from minority of producers laws may well step back and reconsider their own actions. Is their continued participation a perpetuation of their own abuse? If their answer is 'yes' then a withdrawal is as reasoned as fleeing an abusive spouse. Could Tuesday's election be our L'Aquila earthquake?
Maybe or maybe not. I notice that your correspondent calls himself "highly educated" but still spews discredited right wing talking points like gut welfare requirement, and Obamaphones. I thought one of the distinguishing characteristics of being educated was the ability to separate fact from nonsense but looks like your correspondent is so delusional that all that expensive education seems wasted IMO.
So I would suggest he remember the old adage - "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt". The part of the "Atlas Shrugged" email that got to me was the mention of "Obamaphones". At least a half-dozen people with smug smiles have asked me a public interest attorney what I think about "Obamaphones".
I tell them that they have been lied to. The program was created in to help people pay for landlines; Bill Clinton expanded it. The first time the program was extended to cellular phones was under George W.
The phones are not paid for out of Treasury funds but are part of the fees each cell customer pays in their monthly bill. I repeat this and no one believes me. Here's the Snopes. Philosophically I'm a libertarian. It would only make sense for him to do so if Obama were like the villains in the novel, hes not.
Obama at "worst" is a center left progressive who believes strongly in the free market, but also in strongly regulating that market in new creative ways dodd frank, obamacare ect I'm 24, and I voted for Obama in , but I voted for Romney this time. Also I'm sure many people would gladly trade places with him, but you dont just get to where he got without really hard work. If someone wants to take his place, than do for yourself what he did.
Spend the years of hard work blood, sweat, stress and tears he likely spent building up his business and then you can "replace" him. Ayn Rand's philosophy was one of self-reliance and building win-win relationships with other people based on enlightened self-interest.
She said its ok to do what you want, and not worry about being self-sacrificing especially in win-lose relationships where you are the loser What really strikes me about that rant from the Randian entrepreneur is its complete lack of patriotism and gratitude. Is this entrepreneur's patriotism so low that love of country won't motivate him to carry on and continue doing his best to be a job-creator?
Is it really the case that any increase in taxes or regulation is going to cause him to pack up his marbles, so to speak? Pretty pathetic. And where, where is the gratitude for his situation? I know Randians are not particularly religious, but I would think Republican Christians would be put off by the profound ingratitude to Providence in this guy's email. Of course, most of the religious right strike me as profoundly ungrateful too, but it always surprises me that no one points out this un-Christian attitude.
Allow me to pile it on. That "job creator" is insufferable, and too full of himself. Maybe you should attempt to understand the concept of a S Corp and how it's income becomes, for tax reasons, my income. Judging by his spelling I doubt he made it beyond fifth grade. Allow me to add myself to the list of people rolling their eyes at the "Atlas" guy. One of the more bizarre tropes in this election is this weird subtext that if Obama is reelected, things will go to hell in a hand basket.
So, isn't voting for him a signal for more of the same? I mean, I suppose you can say you don't like current trends and want to go off in a different direction, but it's almost as if they are in denial that he's president NOW. There is too much of a core in the Republicans of people who seem to be completely crazy.
0コメント