> readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.
That said, I find it somewhat creepy to base one's life around a work of fiction.
Although both sides have some hardcore followers who blindly defend their side regardless of practicality, they both offer value if approached with rationality... and countless opportunities to enter arguments online that go absolutely nowhere.
> The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics.
http://www.spiralnature.com/phil/objectivism/unlikelycult.ht...
> Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden...
Nathaniel Branden was Rand's lover (while Rand was cheating on her husband) and the #2 person in Objectivism, until he got caught cheating on Rand and then excommunicated. Any member of Objectivism that refused to shun Branden (including members of his family) were likewise excommunicated.
The book Why People Believe Weird Things has a chapter on Objectivism that is well worth reading. http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscie...
I own and have read almost every book published by Ayn Rand.
In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.
If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? What would be the job of the government then?
"gives a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity" - what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?
If everyone created value by Rand's standards, were highly rational and reasonable, did not destroy value, and were otherwise law-abiding (or simply moral) citizens, then you might not need government, or at least a very minimal one. We're incredibly far off from such a world, however (assuming it's even possible), so we at least need military protection, law enforcement, adjudication, etc. A great deal of people, even if law-abiding, aren't living up to their potential for a variety of reasons (many having to do with circumstance and not choice), and so other functions of government have been created to deal with that (with varying success). Other functions include dealing with collective action problems, financing academic research, and other things I'm likely forgetting.
> what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?
I mean the complexity of why many people aren't the productive juggernauts we would like them to be. I bought into Rand's picture of the world when I was introduced to her books, but over time, through constant checking of assumptions, realized that she was being grossly uncharitable towards the unproductive, content simply to label them as villains (which is why she's able to justify abandoning them). This, incidentally, has the self-reinforcing side effect of motivating aspiring John Galts to work even harder as a way of defining themselves in contrast to such villainy. Contempt for the unproductive is a limitless source of motivating juice. (That was my experience, anyway. Wish I still had access to it!)
Whatever its faults, I feel Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers gives a pretty good idea of the (often unintentional) social processes and historical contingencies that keep people from living up to their potential.
From an article previously linked on HN:
This time, he’s talking about a very serious academic concept, devised by the psychologist James Flynn (“One of my heroes,” Gladwell says, swooning), called the human capitalization rate, or “cap rate,” which, Gladwell explains, “refers to the rate at which a given community capitalizes on the human potential of those in its midst.” In the United States, Gladwell is sad to report, “cap rates are really low” owing to poverty, stupidity, and culture.
Yes, that would explain why we're one of the wealthiest societies that have ever existed. </sarcasm>
As for stupidity in our society: there are many Americans who like to publically preen with a statement of the form "In our culture, we are so " + <negative social attribute>. The clear intent is to make the speaker seem simultaneously knowledgable enough about other cultures to make a fair comparison and slightly daring -- nay, a latter day Solzhenitsyn, such is one's daring.
That's not the stupid part, just boring vanity. The stupid part is those people who buy into it. Few of these people have ever lived in other societies (I've lived in two.)
This is the country that has spawned the richest people on the planet, many of them from very lowly backgrounds. The most influential web sites on the planet came from the United States. The greatest TV shows I've seen were all but one American, and the one - The Office - managed to at least win Ricky Gervais an Emmy once he brought it over here. Ditto greatest movies. In almost every field, America has got at least a distinctive presence. So obviously some people are escaping the stupid, impoverished culture.
I think that in Atlas Rand does abandon villains, but I feel that's because she's relying on her readers to have read The Fountainhead so we can already understand their justifications. In that earlier book, she spends a lot of time treating her villains with sympathy. She tries to explain why they are what they are. And while I agree that she does simplify in Atlas, I've absolutely met people who have similar mindsets to the villains from The Fountainhead - she's not just making up that type of person, and they often are as vile and as insignificant as she paints them to be.
He does make it easy for people to parrot things. But the human capitalization rate is a genuinely valuable concept. I read an article recently (possibly here?) about someone working on glasses that the users could adjust themselves, eliminating the need for an optometrist. He's trying to get these distributed on a really wide scale in countries which are too poor to afford optometry, because failing eyesight stops a great many from being able to work.
> So obviously some people are escaping the stupid, impoverished culture.
Individuals definitely do rise up from poverty, but that's a sociological rarity. Most people who grow up poor among other poor folks are indoctrinated into the idea that this is just how it is. It's extremely rare to find a poor person who's able to step back from all that and defiantly work his way up.
> I think that in Atlas Rand does abandon villains, but I feel that's because she's relying on her readers to have read The Fountainhead so we can already understand their justifications.
It's been a while since I read Fountainhead, but the only prominent villains I remember are Keating and Toohey. They seemed to be remarkably capable men, but Keating sabotaged his potential by constantly seeking others' approval. Toohey, I guess, was supposed to be the apotheosis of that mindset.
I'm thinking more about, say, the jaded bum from Atlas Shrugged, or the workers who don't have a love of what they do and aren't highly competent at it. Rand seems pretty happy to just treat them all with contempt, rather than understand where they're coming from and why.
Also, you would still need a military unless the whole world was also on board.
Though I now disagree with her philosophy, I do think she wrote inspiringly about some of her heroes. Roark and Rearden were always my favorite of the bunch.
Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?
http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_26_fr.pdf [pdf]
...any given nation would be nicer, with no income- (including capital-gains) or consumption- taxes.
.
if the tax rate tends towards zero percent, its influence on the decisions taken by persons affected tends to be negligible.
...
less taxation, and, in addition, less distortionary taxation is desirable. Several studies even demonstrate that, from the point of view of maximizing economic growth, the long-run optimal taxation is zero. Milesi-Ferretti and Roubini (1994), for instance, show that under very general assumptions the optimal tax burden on labour and capital income is zero. Jones, Manuelli and Rossi (1993b) and Bull (1993) add that even consumption taxes ought to be equal to zero
The government confiscates citizens money at the point of a gun, and at least some of it goes to frivolous spending, and that's nothing but waste - and that's Ayn Rands premise which you said nothing to counter.
It was in Rand's best interests to influence as many people as possible, since she promotes a system of logic and selfishness to better people. If people subscribe to her theory of belief, she gains as much as they do.
What is Rand losing in this case?
"Selfish" goes to motivation, not consequences. Depending on the amount of pessimism in your dogma, you can always interpret actions as selfish or altruistic after the fact.
Reasoning that can create two equal and opposite arguments like this doesn't mean anything.