I’ve never read Atlas Shrugged, so I don’t have a dog in the fight that this quote may create — I just think it’s funny:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Heh.
Didn’t see that punchline coming a mile away (although as I began reading the quote, I was thinking “the other had hobbits”). If LOTR really changed your life, then I can understand being unable to appreciate Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand.
Objectivism has its blind spots, but there is no denying that Rand was brilliant and a keen observer of the world, most notably of the havoc wrought on the economy and society (and her family) by collectivization at the hands of the Soviets, which she witnessed firsthand. Her protagonists too often read like comic book characters (I have yet to meet the billionaire who is anything like Hank Reardon or Dagny Taggart), but that was probably unavoidable given that she was putting her philosophy in the form of a novel (which has remained a continuously in print bestseller for over 50 years). However, her descriptions of Wesley Mouch and his bureaucratic ilk are uncanny. Therein lies her true genius IMO.
That bookish 14-year old would have been better off waiting a few years to read Rand. If you want to see a fascinating 1959 interview of her by Mike Wallace, see here,, here and here.
Hi Joe Mama. You should Pardon the Below, no offense meant. / Btw what are the Billionaires you HAVE met like? / Selflessly yours, Wesley Mouch. (cc: my bureaucratic Ilk 😉
Brendan: LOL!!!
Funny yes — and also Spot On.
I, too, had the teenage experience discussed in the linked thread, except that all it Took to Hook me was Rand Lite (or at least, Rand Short). At approximately age 14 (maybe 15) I read St. Ayn’s (wotta gal! 😉 novella, “Anthem” — and I was Gone.
But maybe because it was only a toke of Rand Short (granted, I Inhaled :), after about 2 weeks of delerious philosophical ravings the fever broke & I began to Recover. Later on, out of scholarly inquisitiveness 🙂 I did Dip Into (won’t claim Read in Full) “The Fountainhead” & “Atlas Shrugged” and other such Objectivistical fol-re-rol; but by then, Naaah. (Also granted, it took me a little longer than 2 weeks — say, about 30 years ;> — to completely kick Buckleyite conservative Republicanism; but that’s quite Different & at least I’m still Clean. 😉
Re “Anthem”, Brendan, your Tolkienish post title is a propos. In its collectivist future society the word “I” is Banned & long Forgotten, in favor of the first-person Plural. “We are John Galt”, indeed! (Actually in the “Anthem” world it would have had to be “our precious,” but still.) / Why, come to think of it there’s even a passing resemblance.
🙂
Straw-man alert, anybody?
Using objectivism as a stand-in target for “right-wing philosophy” is nonsensical. There are attractive elements in objectivism, and those who adhere to it most feverishly are rightly called “libertarians”, not “conservatives”. If you’re confused about the not-so-subtle differences, go familiarize yourself with the online debates between Jonah Goldberg at NRO and the cast of characters at LewRockwell.com.
IMO, objectivism is every bit worth studying and critiquing as is communism, but unfortunately the balance of historical influence has tilted towards the latter. Neither ideology constitutes an acceptable program for societal order, but I have no problem betting that a history shaped far more by Ayn Rand would have left us a 20th-century legacy filled with far more wealth creation, technological advance, and human happiness than the bloodshed and backwardness we engendered through misguided embrace of collectivist ideologies.
Joe, don’t you know? All billionaires are the same — greedy, pigheaded usurpers who only got to where they are because of luck and/or taking advantage of the less fortunate…
Joe Yerself, of course I know all that. ;} All I was Really trying to find out is which ones you’ve Met, and How & Why & When & Where. Don’t ya know Nosy when ya See it? Whaddaya, some kinda cranky right-of-privacy Individualist or sumpin’? :}
Andrew: I agree with you that (a) Objectivism is not conservatism (I think it’s rather ant-conservative, as is Every purportedly all-encompassing & all-Explanatory ideology), and (b) Objectivism is worth studying & learning from, as is the work of anyone who deploys a Randian level of intellectual candlepower.
But what I Don’t get is the “Straw-man alert, anybody?” intro. Who here put up Rand as the Straw (Wo)man for conservatism? If (?) you think Me: Not Me. Distinguishingly, I wrote that “…Buckleyite conservative Republicanism” is “quite different…” from Objectivism — and if it weren’t, Buckley wouldn’t have Banished it (via Whittaker Chambers’s scathing review) from NR and the Movement, thus inviting all the Hate mail that ensued.
Sorry for the confusion Joe, the straw-man comment was directed not at you or Brendan, but more towards Andrew Sullivan’s blog post and some of the anti-Rand commentary therein (and I suppose a preemptive strike for whenever David or Sandy come to the table to debate).
I misspoke, Nosy — haven’t met any billionaires … millionaires, yes (but they’re not such an exclusive breed nowadays). I meant that I have yet to see/hear/learn of the billionaire who is anything like Hank Reardon …
Everyone who has played Bioshock knows that following Rands advice doesn’t end well.
Everyone who has followed history knows that following Marx’s advice doesn’t end well.
Andrew – ah. I should’ve realized. Thanks.
And thanks, too, Joe M. Of course I knew you had merely used the customary locution (“I have yet to meet…”, etc.), not meaning it Literally — and therefore I Pounced upon it in order to make Mischief, because that’s just the way I Roll. ;> You got me Back pretty good, too. :]
gahrie, that’s true about old Karl. (Marx, not Rove.) (Although some might say it’s applicable to both. 🙂 Of course yer Manifesto Man would probably contend, if he could, that nobody’s ever Tried to follow his prescriptions. Late in his life, contemplating what was being done with & to his theories, he is Said to have said, “…if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist”.
Actually, though Marx wouldn’t admit it even if he Could, his real culprit is History. It simply refused to conform to his Laws. (Dialectic, Schmyalectic. 😉
Agreed, Marx’s advice doesn’t end well. No one in power on the left is arguing we should be following it either…
David RE #11:
Really?
Better ask Bernie Sanders about that.
Yes really, the policies advocated by Sanders may sometimes be on the socialist side of the spectrum but are no where near Marxist Communism.
No actual Democrat in power is pushing from government ownership of everything for example.
No actual Democrat in power is pushing from government ownership of everything for example.
Perhaps…but it would be more intellectually honest. Instead, they just want to dictate to business under the guise of regulation.
Forgetting Ayn Rand’s ” ” “so-called” ” ” “philosophy” ” ” “so-called” ” “, the woman is just the most horrific writer to ever abuse a pen.
Here’s my impression of a typical Ayn Rand paragraph.
“John Steelwang stood proudly against the rain, while slimy, moldy, filthy, grimy orphans accosted him from all sides. He boldly lifted his heroic self-made boot to kick one of them in its worthless, sugar-rotted teeth.
Suddenly Pusillane Limperdink appeared out of nowhere. ‘How can you abuse these helpless creatures?” he belched in a porcine grunt.
Steelwang gazed proudly into the sunshine. “They are not humans, for they do not have jobs making steel.” He reflected for a moment on the perfect, flawless, logical genius of his statement, and how utterly correct he always was about everything.
Meanwhile Limperdink began to sob heavily, as his jealous, stupid, bitter, evil, morbidly obese mind distorted the world into a perverted version of itself. “But they’re just children, sir!” he shouted stupidly.
Steelwang realized that in that moment, Limperdink’s thoughts made him and all those like him into inhuman animals, worthy only of being shot in the face. Limperdink pulled out an automatic weapon and pointed it confidently and heroically into the festering mass of orphan vermin. He pulled the trig-”
To find out the rest, you must buy Ayn Rand’s “The Erupting Phallus of Truth” and read for yourself.
“Perhaps…but it would be more intellectually honest. Instead, they just want to dictate to business under the guise of regulation.”
And why not? Left on their own we’ve seen what buisnesses do and its not pretty. Pollution, child labor, etc. Certainly too much regulation can be bad, but not enough is what got us into the market collapse in the first place. If the Glass-Steagal Act hadn’t been revoked for example.
If you want to know what its like not to have regulation I suggest reading The Jungle.
The primary motivator of buisness is profit, often this is at odds with the public interest. Government regulation is necessary to prevent the drive for profit from coming at the expense of the common good.
The market is like a fire, you need to keep it fueled to gain heat from it, but if you don’t keep an eye on it it can burn out of control. On the other hand if you are too cautious it will simply burn out and be useless. A debate can and shoudl be had over how much and in what areas regulation occurs. The idea, however that regulation is always bad, however, is simply false.
I never said I opposed regulation. I oppose the government running businesses through regulation.
I oppose the government telling companies what type of light bulb they can make.
I oppose the government telling companies what type of shower head or toilet tank they can make.
Venerated Loy #10 – what most people don’t seem to realise is that the *only* reason Marx was able to write what he did was that, under Victorian imperialism/capitalism, he was able to find a Patron who supported him while he was writing … under the states that resulted from his Manifesto, he would not have been able to write what he believed unless it coincided very closely with the rulers of those states … State Imperialism *really* doesn’t tolerate dissension well – as we can see here, where the “Dissent is Patriotic” cry of the Pelouses during Bush II morphed into the current “Dissent is unpatriotic” under our First Occupant …
Then again, we have also gone from the “Elections have consequences!” of the former Madam to the current “Elections shouldn’t matter as much” from Ms Pelosi … (I know, I know, she was Madam Speaker – yet both apply) …