Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The ideology can be summed up to refusing to live at someone else expanse, and refusing that people life at your expanse.

It goes both ways, and I need no one to back me up. I am happy with my ideology, and I won't be coerced into anything I won't do out of my free will - with or without money. That is true freedom.

BTW even stretching that definition very far, I fail to see how it can include the RIAA, which lives at the expanse of our legal system, and which makes a lot more people life at its expanse.

Information goods are not in the domain of economy (even if some like to say they are non rival and non excludable like a public good) - they are not scarce resources.

And the free software movement has show that no special incentive was required to produce high quality information goods.

The answer to the RIAA is in the market - in the artists around us whose work we enjoy and can financially support. kickstarter movements now make that possible.

The ideology can be summed up to refusing let someone else live at your expense.

Fixed that for you. I've read the book. There's quite a bit of kicking freeloaders to the curb. My takeaway was that if you didn't want to be kicked to the curb by some tough guy, you shouldn't live at his expense. Which is really some lame contrapositive of "don't let freeloaders live at your expense".

It was a terrible piece of fiction, by the way. The characters were way too unbelievable.

I'm sorry to say that, but I think you totally misunderstood the message. You can not fix the most important idea of the book, coming with a lenghty tirade, if you cut half of it.

You think about and describe bullying. The ideas in the book are closer to refusing voluntary servitude - ala Boetie: http://mises.org/document/1218/The-Politics-of-Obedience-The...

"States are more vulnerable than people think. They can collapse in an instant—when consent is withdrawn" says the above article. I'd correct that and say "the productive and growing economy" instead.

Atlas Shrugged is just a story explaining that, and providing a philosophy to leave with that in mind.

The characters aren't really meant to be believable. http://books.google.com/books?id=TYZaNwrIM8YC&pg=PT664&#...

I guess "believable" is the wrong word. They were one-dimensional and boring. The book is a terrible description of a way of life masked as a story, and in my opinion, that's all it is.

I find irony in this thread because Ayn Rand was a huge proponent of IP and laws that secure its rights to the creative originator.

Back then, it made sense. With the current technology, information goods don't.

When we invent say the matter duplicator, things will change again. The core statement remains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com