Hacker News Reader

Comment by rglullis | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one who is very libertarian-inclined but hated Atlas Shrugged? Instead of creating characters that are human (with flaws, weaknesses, subject to emotional reactions) but that manage to "win" by sticking to some ideal, she creates characters that are the personification of that ideal, completely out of touch of reality.

I mean, not even Greek gods were perfect if you know basic mythology. Yet, you want me to believe that Hank Rearden will just give up "his true love" just because he sees value in Galt? And what happens with Rearden's self-interest? (as in, I want the girl, dammit!)

Acting out of self-interest in only valid when dealing with money? Stupid!

Besides, talking about the "Philosophy of Ayn Rand" is no different than talking about the "Theology of L. Ron Hubbard."

View on HN

she creates characters that are the personification of that ideal, completely out of touch of reality.

That's intentional. The effect is Brechtian - the characters are designed to force you to think about and self-rationalize the concepts they represent. They're not there to populate a fictional world you can lose yourself in.

Relax. You're not alone. I'm extremely libertarian and I hated the Fountainhead (haven't read AS). And objectivism rubs me the wrong way.

I think generally libertarian philosophy is inclined towards voluntarism as the broad umbrella. In other words, altruism - I hesitate to use this word so how about charity - is not to be forced upon people by the hand of the government, which is coercive. Personally, I believe that there are genuinely people, who through no fault of their own, are unable to help themselves. Like the electric-wheelchair-bound multiple gunshot wound victim who was one of my low-income food-delivery clients in DC. That could have been anyone. And if it happened to you, you woudn't be able to care for yourself. And you'd want someone to, out of the goodness of their hearts (or hell, for whatever screwed up reason they might have) to reach out help you.

But that isn't the same as someone "putting a gun to your head" and telling you you'd better help that person, at the threat of arrest.

Although I completely agree with you, Rand considers herself a romanticist[1], and therefore uses her literature to portray her vision of the ideal human being. In fact, I think I read somewhere that she hated naturalism.

[1] See The Fountainhead's introduction in one of the recent editions.

Rand claims that the characters were intentionally portrayed that way:

"My characters are persons in whom certain human attributes are focused more sharply and consistently than in average human beings"

I agree with you on the Rearden vs Galt issue though...that doesn't make sense.

I believe it does, in the context of the story.

1) Hank Reardon wouldn't tolerate a life of (self) deception; knowing Dagny wanted Galt, and accepting that truth, was the only internally consistent course available.

2) Hank Reardon loved and respected Galt. If he had to give up Dagny to be able to continue to be a part of Galt/D'Ancona/Dagny's life, then his rational response was to do that.

3) Hank Reardon embodied the self-confidence that allowed him to see Dagny's preference for Galt was not a rejection of Hank, nor did that diminish Hank Reardon (e.g. your value isn't shaped by others).

You have to view it as a thought experiment -

only individual freedom matters -> libertarianism

only equality matters -> communism

only arbitrary values and efficient pursuit of them matter -> fascism

behind every form of government lurks an oligarchy that has to make workable tradeoffs between those ideals, while of course pursuing their own interests

What basis do you have for equating the "Philosophy of Ayn Rand" with the "Theology of L. Ron Hubbard"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com