You're delusional. Where did I ever recommend reading Atlas Shrugged? Ayn Rand is nuts.

1.Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Centennial-Edition-eboo...

2.The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Book-Living-Dying-ebook/dp/B00...

Gun, Germs, and Steel - For the valuable history of our culture and society.

Atlas Shrugged - for showing the entrepreneurial way and the necessity for hard work

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, I just love this book!

Greatest Trade Ever by Gregory Zuckerman.

And I read manga , so include One Piece as well :D

Especially since the bherms mentioned Atlas Shrugged, I think BK would be a great book to explore humanity illuminated in a much different way.

I suggest you download the unabridged audio version of Atlas Shrugged from audible.com or iTunes. It's read incredibly well and you'll probably enjoy it immensely...

I have not yet read the good book Atlas Shrugged but I'll be sure to check it out based on your recommendation. Gotta go.

Who is John Galt?

Is there anyone else out there who just loves the book like I do without applying the politics in real life?

BTW, here's my favorite comment on Atlas Shrugged, starring Bob the Angry Flower: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

Top 3 books I read -> 1) Atlas Shrugged 2) Thinking in Pictures: My Life with Autism 3) GTD

I am currently reading "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro and its awesome so far (~150 pgs in). Just finished Zinn's "A people's history". Next up is "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Power of Babel" by John McWhorter.

* Atlas Shrugged (also good: The Fountainhead) by Ayn Rand

* Made to Stick by Chip Heath and Dan Heath

* Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Freedman

* The Plague by Albert Camus

Reading Atlas Shrugged made me an asshole for at least 2 weeks - I remember some stormy arguments with my flatmates over drinks.

As polemic it's amazing; as a moral code it's callous.

On the contrary, the book is intended only to shed light on some moral distinctions about capitalism that people are inclined not to appreciate.

They're good books for trying to find out _why_ you agree or disagree.

*awaits downvotes from Objectivists

also, not a book but very good "The last question" Isaac Asimov [1]

[1] http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

We are quite capable of pure fiction with symbolic inspirations, there is no need to suspect "a kernel of truth" behind any speculation.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky

These are the most intelligent and well written books I've ever read. Authors are amazing at thinking clearly, and expressing their ideas. Stories are fantastic, and the author's philosophies are amazing and mind-expanding.

Next up is Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky.

Besides, that's his honest reaction to the text. Why throw a fit over somebody else's aversion to the novel?

I read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager and that's where I got it from.

[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_sign#From_.22U.S..22

Then do you oppose the idea of public universities generally? Atlas Shrugged is a work of fantasy and light philosophy; I don't think it's relevant to the problem at hand.

Those books are probably what made me into a self-sufficient human being who wants to stand on his own and keep living the best he can.

Other books I'd put in that category are Fight Club and Walden

They will always say such things.

You almost directly quoted just now the excuse used by the looters in the book.

My comment was in relation to Atlas Shrugged and unless you've read the book, you won't necessarily understand what I mean by looters and the like.

not to be confused with galt detection, which tracks people who've read Atlas Shrugged and took its economic/political philosophy a little too seriously.

In periods of high-stress I can barely bring myself to pick up a book, but Im sure I'd read that email first thing in the morning. Very well done!

Now please, add Atlas Shrugged to the list, its due a re-read :)

How is the description of the expertise of Sherlock, and Ayn Rand's book related as you seem to infer? I am genuinely curious and would appreciate your feedback...

1. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

And, sorry, but I have 3 "number 1 fav" books:

1. 1984 by George Orwell

It sad that her ideas is quite unpopular among general public. And as a consequence Europe and even US go towards socialism these days.

Prediction: Elon gets arrested, Tesla keeps producing, Tesla comes out of this stronger than other automakers, mid-term move to Nevada or Texas, congressperson retires with pension.

If reading Atlas Shrugged is too much work for your taste, then I think the actual ideas contained in it would surely be quite distasteful to you, but I guess the world will never know.

No it's not. It's really not.

I don't want to get into a big AS bashing here, but if you're looking for a good Ayn Rand novel on individualism I suggest you try 'The Fountainhead'.

That said: The Fountainhead is a great read, and so is Atlas Shrugged, even if it's not the absolute masterpiece she intended.

It never occurred to me that the book might have other purposes than that. I think I'm going to check out The Fountainhead first though.

It sounds like you're saying she wasn't a libertarian because she labeled herself as an objectivist but a) it doesn't matter what she labeled herself as and b) it can be seen as just a subset, I struggle to think of any incompatibilities between the two, especially since libertarianism is used with much looser meaning.

And without money, who decides who get what instead? Wesley Mouch?

I may be biased by just recently having read Atlas Shrugged, and not quite having digested it completely yet, but I do feel that money is the best tool we have to solve the huge problem of optimally distributing resources. The only true resources are every persons time, ability and effort; everything else is given to us for free by the universe and governed by the laws of physics/nature. Freedom means we each get to decide what it means to apply our own resources optimally.

Now if we can use technology to create a better communication/collaboration tool than money to pool and distribute our resources I'm all for it.

And Atlas Shrugged - controversial, I know, a lot of people here hate it for some reason, but it was incredibly influential on me, inspired my passion for entrepreneurship and science and philosophy. Still is one of the best books I am aware of.

If I could send 2 books back in time to the 14-year-old me - these would be it.

And Atlas Shrugged - controversial, I know, a lot of people here hate it for some reason, but it was incredibly influential on me, inspired my passion for entrepreneurship and science and philosophy. Still is one of the best books I am aware of.

If I could send 2 books back in time to the 14-year-old me - these would be it.

We read Atlas Shrugged and see ourselves. Let us run the world and everybody will do great. We don't read The Jungle or Nickel and Dimed, and if we do we don't see ourselves. We enjoy the benefits of the labor movement as natural rights -- or even dismiss things like weekends and sick leave as unnecessary.

That's not everybody on HN; in fact HN seems to be better than many. Slashdotters, last I saw, seemed quite convinced Rand had written scripture.

Point is, the purpose of toys is to have fun. I wouldn't regard my example to be any different than spending one's disposable income on a trip to Vegas or a VR headset.

I won't spoil the plot for anybody who's planning to read it, since this mystery is one of the main parts of the story, but this explanation sounds pretty likely to me.

Here's the plot on Wikipedia, though it doesn't give a very good explanation of why people choose to disappear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged#Plot_summary

The book is a novel of ideas and is, as such, an abstraction. You should not try to interpret it as a prescription for how society should work.

I think what you're looking for is some sort of political treatise or pamphlet. Atlas Shrugged is an argument about the morality of capitalism. If you are looking for more than that in it you'll be disappointed.

I do recommend you take my advice and read it though... I generally have a policy of reimbursing people in beer for the amount they spend on a paperback version. I'm sure that I or someone else would happily extend that offer :)

It's a good book but like anything else people extrapolate the points beyond recognition and additionally interpret it to re-enforce their own views, regardless of how unreasonable those views might be.

That said, I agree that the movie doesn't look great. I'll almost certainly go see it anyway, but I'm bracing myself to be disappointed.

Anyone who hasn't read Atlas Shrugged owes it to themselves to pick it up. Love it or hate it, it's highly influential.

Some of crypto's loudest voices are young, college-aged people who've recently read Atlas Shrugged or Catcher in the Rye and are certain that they will never be the ones to lose their keys.

Rand has a very distinct philosophy and is quite black-and-white, but even if you don't agree with everything hopefully you can appreciate the writing and storytelling in The Fountainhead (and others). It seems that a lot of the discussion about Rand is focused on her philosophy and if it's right or wrong. This is probably justified but also obscures the fact that she was a master at writing.

I read this book in my early 20s and loved it. Even though I've become much more liberal on many issues (proponent of universal healthcare, tax-payer paid higher ed, etc.) I can still appreciate the themes in her work.

Also just finished Anthem last night- I recommend checking it out. Super short but really gripping read.

The Wright Brothers, David McCullough - wonderful book on the Wright Brothers, easy to read, shows that persistence and logic thinking pays out. 5/5

The autobiography of Malcom X, Malcolm X - Nice bio, a bit repetitive sometimes. 3/5

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand - Although the book has more than 1200 pages it really kept me going. I read this book to get a better understanding of the ideology of some republicans. Fun read. 4.5/5

Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt - Levitt studies all kind of different everyday questions using economics. 4/5, short, easy to read

Guantanamo Diary, Mohamedou Ould Slahi - Diary of a Guantanamo prisoner who has been imprisoned since 2002. The US has never charged him with a crime. Profound and disturbing. 5/5

No place to hide, Glenn Greenwald - Story on Edward Snowden, probably read by most of HN. Enjoyed it, that's it. 4/5

How to lie with statistics, Darrel Huff - Short book on statistics, easy to read and fun. 4/5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Try lesswrong and transhumanist websites if that's your thing. Or anything else - it's your tastes that matters.

As many others pointed in the thread, anomie is best fought if you create your own meaning. To me, this meant defining my own values first.

Anyhow, I remember the first time I mentioned that it was a reasonably fast, light read to someone else, and they reacted like I had asked them to read "Atlas Shrugged" or something. Like, apparently, reading anything longer than a medium post is a whole lot of effort for most people, even if it's actually good.

I think about this every time a thin person tells me how easy it is to lose weight just by avoiding certain foods and, you know, eating a reasonable amount of said foods, or "just being more mindful." "It's easy" - I mean, I'm sure it is easy for you, and that's great! But some of us need to monitor our intake. I mean, I'll sit there and scarf a pound of pecans in a sitting, if I don't expend significant will to stop myself, and at what, 200 calories an ounce, I don't have to do that often to remain fat. And fruit juice? I think a significant portion of my gut is composed of that delicious fresh orange juice that the local taquaria will squeeze for you (and serve in those giant cups)

Of course, I don't yet know if monitoring my calories in and out will be enough to actually get myself to a reasonable size or not. I've only been doing it for two weeks or so. But I have been a vegitarian, and in and of itself, that doesn't solve the problem.

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson) - awesome analytics book about wealth source

The Wealth of Nations (Adam Smith) - classic book about source of money and economic processes

Some of my favorites and their lessons:

Enders game -> Understanding an "enemy" makes you see their beauty, makes you not want to be enemies (dehumanizing the enemy is extremely important in warfare and in propaganda; we boycot evil Putin, we don't think of honest Russian people who "love their children too", trying to make the best out of life.).

Atlas Shrugged -> The importance of not ignoring your own wishes in a group context, the morality of rational self-interest.

Brave New World -> You can either spend time creating or you can spend it consuming.

1984 -> All the metaphors it provides just makes any discussion regarding government over-reach so much more efficient.

Little Brother -> Why privacy is more important than security: Your rulers can be wrong with catastrophic consequences.

I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make it my religion.

The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)

Read them multiple times in my late teens / early 20s.

1.) People lie to you, and most of the time, you will never know that they're lying to you.

2.) There are 5 qualities necessary to be a successful entrepreneur: intelligence, integrity, courage, wisdom, and the capacity to see beyond. When you start, you should have intelligence, integrity, and courage. Wisdom can only come from experience, but you should have the ability to acquire wisdom. Finally, entrepreneurs need the ability to "see beyond", and only time will tell if they truly have that ability.

3.) Precision of language is important.

4.) Safe and comfortable is more dangerous than painful and real.

5.) Making wise decisions is perhaps the hardest task that someone can take on, so difficult that people will try to concentrate the burden in one individual. It shouldn't be concentrated, though. For the community to thrive, everybody needs to bear the burden.

6.) To accomplish anything, you need passion. Don't try to suppress it with a pill.

7.) The way things are is not always the way things should be.

8.) Sometimes, the greatest weight is the knowledge of what others have done before you.

9.) Find people like you, and pass them your memories. They're often the only ones who will understand them.

10.) There's more than one way to interpret the ending.

All this in a book that is shorter than John Galt's speech.

I thought Atlas Shrugged was a good book, but it wasn't a great book. The ideas are very seductive, but then you start trying to apply them, find you're being a jackass, and then realize there are subtleties to life that Ayn Rand didn't understand. Atlas Shrugged had a lot about how you should live your life, but very little about why. That's why I think that The Giver - and much children's literature, in general - is better and more mature.

* "The Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolfe. The classic novel of 80s Wall Street at its peak.

* "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis. A pretty terrifying picture of greed and excess, again on 80s Wall Street. If you've seen the movie, you know what to expect -- only in greater detail.

* "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Some people hate it, but others find it an inspirational novel. The heroes are driven, smart, competitive entrepreneurs; the antagonists are greedy, pilfering government regulators. Whether or not you like this will probably depend on your pre-existing ideological preference.

I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting...

I can keep up with ordinary podcasts just fine, I can keep up with television shows for the most part (extremly heavy accents can be a problem) but I really, really have to listen to the words carefully.

I do believe you would be better of with a book that wasn't written as well. Atlas Shrugged would be pretty awesome for this precisely because it has so many repetitions.

Another was Nineteen Eighty Four by Orwell.

I'd also cite The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand as having influenced me, although I read it when I was older and found that it mostly reinforced ideas that I was already sympathetic towards. Similar situation with Atlas Shrugged, also by Rand.

I could probably also call out The Soul of a New Machine by Kidder, as being a primary influence that pushed me in the direction of getting involved with computers.

It used way too many cheap emotional tricks to push the case of being rational. I know Dangy is good and competent because she is described that way. The good guys are strong and beautiful and the bad guys are weak and ugly.

The problem with that book is that people and the systems described don’t work the way she was portraying them and after the 3 hour speech I wanted to punch Galt in the nuts.

That said, the birth of my son altered me for a long time (made more emotional, better able to enjoy emotion). Finishing the reconstruction of my house with my own hands altered me (showed me I can do major things when I just start doing them). Getting my PhD showed me that even though I reached the maximum level of education I can still have insecurities about my intelligence and they are thus irrational. Reading Atlas Shrugged changed me from someone who automatically though from a group perspective to someone who kept his own needs at a higher priority by showing me the moral rational for this type of thinking.

I never tried LSD or the like but aren't they just shortcuts to states of mind I can attain by learning myself to be more grateful for what I have? To be more social and nice? Can I attain the long term effects of psychedelic drugs by reading? By learning how to meditate? That is what I always believed.

Perhaps at some point I will experiment, now I feel I can't take any risks, I need my brain the way it is to provide for my family.

It seems to take a weird stance that self interest has to go hand in hand with productivity and free trade though, or else the sentiment is labeled anti-life or looting (or murder in later chapters). Its a bit of a strange argument, I'm not certain its as coherent as it is romantic.

Anyway, the book would not be nice about how it described a company that posted fake reviews.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19190635

It's also interesting that the view of Rand has shifted so far, so quickly. I remember reading Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged after reading the many positive comments about them on Slashdot.

I didn't even know she was deeply hated by anyone until the social network era. Sure the writing is not that great, but people really, really hate her and people who enjoy her books. For instance:

https://twitter.com/lithub/status/1050062105905389568

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was a long one, but very very good also.

Lastly, The Empire of Austria: Its Rise and Present Power by John S. C. Abbott. It gave me a deeper understanding and historical context on where I am currently based.

https://www.ozon.ru/highlight/top-200-knig-po-mneniyu-chitat...

Of the Top-12, 6 to 8 are some form of a self-help book:

* 1st: The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fck.

* 4th: Ben Graham's Intelligent Investor.

* 5th: A Russian-author book on the art of "convincing" & "influencing" people (sound familiar?).

* 6th: Another American book, "Radical Forgiveness: A Guide to Spiritual Healing"

* 8th: Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

* 11th: Women Who Love Too Much: If Love is Causing Suffering. Also a US book.

* 12th: Atlas Shrugged. I suppose it's not a self-help book, but it's very much in line with the spirit of "open-your-eyes" literature.

* If you go down the list, there is a bunch of other titles like Rich Dad Poor Dad, the full set of Nassim Taleb's quasi self-improvement books, etc.

We can sort of argue whether some of these books are self-help adjacent or not (like Ben Graham or Nassim Taleb), but the trend is clear: self-improvement literature is very popular in Russia.

This shows that the self-help cottage industry is not limited to the US. I think people just like the idea of self-improvement.

edit: formatting

Neither of us were (or are) objectivists, but it's one of those books that poke your buttons. Either you agree[1], you disagree[2], or you think it's insipid[3]. :-)

[1] Yeah, screw those looters who aren't as smart as I am! I mean, he is!

[2] Jeez, I hope someone drops a rock on these anti-social bastards. And what a floozy!

[3] You needed 80 pages for that speech? Weren't you reading this book while you wrote it?

Anecdotally I too had this "They Live" sunglasses moment.

You are reading Atlas Shrugged and you think this book is the Truth this is IT. Those other silly teenagers getting into religion or socialism or drugs or music they are so deluded.

https://xkcd.com/610/

This is why the John Rogers quip was particularly apt here.

Again the Rand quote is a good/truthful axiom/premise. The problem comes when someone impressionable treats the whole book as the bible.

I agree. But, Steve Jobs was indeed an ethical egoist in words and in actions. I think this statement alone, supported by his entire life's work, testifies to his having been an "ethical egoist":
“Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.” -Steve Jobs (2005 Stanford Commencement Address)

or this:
"Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle." -Steve Jobs, Stanford Address

I think that Craig Biddle's conclusions are correct - whether or not Jobs himself ever said he was or wasn't an Objectivist.

FYI, have you seen this interview with Woz:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/74391682/#ooid=8xMWJyMjoT9XMT...
Around 9:00:
"STEVE WOZNIAK: …And he did want to have a successful company, and he had a lot of ideas. He must’ve read some books that really were his guide in life, you know, and I think… Well, Atlas Shrugged might’ve been one of them that he mentioned back then. But they were his guides in life as to how you make a difference in the world. And it starts with a company. You build products and you gotta make your profit, and that allows you to invest the profit and then make better products that make more profit. I would say, how good a company is, it’s fair to measure it by its profitability."

I won't even begin to quote the Think Different(tm) commercial or Jobs' line of reasoning for why Apple did that entire campaign.

I've never read Atlas Shrugged. We pay our taxes because if we don't, armed men will try to arrest us, and if we resist them then they will kill us. Violence is the ultimate backstop of any law. That's fine: we need laws, and we need taxes. But let's try to ensure that we threaten & use violence as little as is reasonable.

I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who suggested asking oneself, for any law, if one would wave a gun at one's grandmother to force her to comply. Laws against murder and theft? Sure, grandma had better not do that. Taxes to prevent people starving on the streets? Sure, grandma had better cough up. Laws against selling soup in one's home, or taxes to fund cowboy poetry festivals? Somehow I just can't see pointing a gun at grandma for that.

I wonder how many of them have, rather than burning the book, decided to read it and think about it for themselves?

Cause if you do-- you would no longer be a leftist.

Those terms don't have a consistent meaning. What was considered typical "capitalist free-market" thinking then is not typical "capitalist free-market" thinking now. For instance: Atlas Shrugged was only published in 1957 and Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom in 1963, and it took until the 1980s for those ideas to start to have wide influence in popular culture and government.

Is our world now more like 1984 or Brave New World?

https://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/brave-new-world-v...

Edited: I've just re-watched that Intelligence Squared debate and, my God, it is bang on and more relevant now than ever!

"Once you see the property and the location you’ll likely be thinking the same thing as me: This is like buying in Napa Valley or Santa Barbara fifty years ago, but with all of today’s modern amenities, and none of the modern day headaches."

If the best analogy for your Randian utopia is California, then we must have read different editions of Atlas Shrugged (although, to be fair, I listened to the audiobook and it might have been abridged).

I can't agree strongly enough. Everybody should read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. And go into it with an open mind, instead of planning to reject it based on preconceived biases. A lot of people might be surprised at how they feel about things at the end.

All of that said, I think Rand hurt herself in one crucial way w.r.t her writing. And that is her somewhat nonstandard use of certain words, especially "selfish" and "selfishness". For better or worse, her use of those words is a bit different from the common, colloquial usage, and most people - in my experience - don't bother to try and really dig in and parse out what she meant.

I'm not even sure a word exists that, by itself, captures exactly what she meant by "selfish" or "selfishness". Something like "self interest" or "inner desire" or maybe "self reward" comes close, but those all feel kinda clumsy if inserted into her works in place of "selfish" and its other forms.

Perhaps if more people read Rand (especially her nonfiction), we might not be in this predicament.

Agreed. Sadly, even among people who have read Rand, too many just read Atlas Shrugged and formed their opinions there. And while I enjoyed AS and think it has a lot of virtue, it's not a great novel in many ways, and as a non-native English speaker, her writing in AS can feel a bit wooden and stilted at times. I think The Fountainhead is a bit better in this regard, in addition to being shorter, and generally recommend it as a better intro to Rand's fiction, for people who want to go down that path.

In order to understand her methods you must understand her epistemology. This requires reading her nonfiction systematically (and Peikoff's).

Here's a Reddit reaction to Rand's response to a letter:
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1reias/til_th...
especially see this response:
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1reias/til_th...

She's completely misunderstood and misrepresented. There are countless examples of this.

In politics, she's seen as the epitome of all that is "right wing", whatever the Hell that means. Her ethics are disregarded as simple ignorant selfishness. It's easy to see why many would disagree with her.

Academia simply dismisses her. However, her ideas are becoming harder to ignore - they are important!

Highly recommend reading at least Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Then pick up Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and the recently released Understanding Objectivism . UO is very good (it's useful/personal, down to earth), but requires familiarity with Objectivism.

These are generally the kind of hard working working people who get cheated due to office politics, or an unfair boss, or the people who score less marks because the teacher wanted to reward her otherwise favorite pupil.

One of the top reasons why people want to have their own business is because 'working for others' ultimately leads to a situation where you do all the work, while not getting nearly the atom worth the due rewards you deserve. Its not selfish or arrogant or even wrong that such people ultimately take things into their own hands and refuse to put up with being treated unfairly.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The philosophy of it looked straight obvious and something that I myself have gone through.

Rand's philosophy is not the case, but rather a effect of a deep rooted malaise where some people find it perfectly fine to cheat. And expect the person to be fine being cheated.

On a side note, I attended a Start up conference a years back here Bangalore. At the end there was open panel discussion as to what makes a better career option 'Start up or a Job at a Megacorp' a middle manager from representing a mega corp called start up founders are impatient, greedy and selfish. This is how bad the situation gets when you put up with unfair treatment, the person cheating thinks it's perfectly ok to treat you unfairly. And more, it is unfair to him that you refuse to get cheated.

Want to prevent the Rand philosophy from spreading, do something that triggers its flow and adoption at the first place. But we all already know that's not going to happen.

Obviously Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, a community as small as was in the book couldn't match the productive output of city with a large labour force and not everyone is going to buy in to a capitalistic utopia. But the idea was never that the rich should dominate by virtue of being rich; the philosophy was that people should become rich because others agree that they are creating wealth. And the method for determining what people think should be a free market, and everyone should be left alone apart from that.

Not only that, but it was massively hypocritical, because all the villains were people who were overly swayed by appeals to others' neediness and emotion, yet the book itself is a message of "pity the poor billionaires as they suffer these fictional hardships."

[1]Seriously, the premise of Atlas Shrugged is the great entrepreneurial capitalist novel, but if I passionately believed that the government was so restrictive towards the activities of private enterprises that they actually were on the verge of scaring all the entrepreneurs away, the last thing I'd want people to read to persuade them of this peril would be a tome populated with playboy hereditary billionaire geniuses and philosopher pirates to the point where the whole idea seemed a bit ridiculous

[2]Looks like he's in the thread to correct me on this :-)

Things that immediately stood out as different:

- 3 Rand books in the top 6? Really?

- 2 Scientology / Anti Psychology books near the top (#2, #11)

A look at the fiction list reveals the same bias:

Top 10 from the 'Novels List'

  ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
  THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
  BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
  THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkien
  TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee
  1984 by George Orwell
  ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
  WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand
  MISSION EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
  FEAR by L. Ron Hubbard

Generally speaking, I do find ReadQuick has a very elegant UX, so I'd much prefer to use that app for all my reading needs. Just a shame it doesn't employ spritz technology and support for ePubs etc.

I really enjoy Atlas Shrugged as well, I've read the whole book twice, actually. But I don't believe it is a good code to live by. My favorite quite about her books comes from The Daily Show. On the back of America The Book there is a fake blurb from Rand: "just like one of my books, reading this book will make you an asshole for two weeks."

Her books are seductive because they intentionally oversimplify life. Her characters are not realistic and are completely binary. Everyone is either a superhero or a weasel. This makes for entertaining reading, but not much else.

Read "Crossing to Safety" by Wallace Stegner. It is a brautiful book about an intense relationship forged between two couples. It's my favorite thing I've read recently.

I read this after I just read Atlas Shrugged and wondered how my convictions fitted into the objectivists' world view. Whether this was the real Linus or not, I liked his view, as I generally do. And it matches his down-to-earth-ness. BTW: Please don't butcher my karma again for mentioning Ayn ;)

[0] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&ei=6IOkXO2a...

Good luck finding a hotel for cheaper than $200 at least in Manhattan :) And you're right, you're not forced, you're more than welcome to sleep on the public streets.

> Laws and regulations around housing are put in place to protect all residents, the landlord, the community,

To a certain extent this is true, but this does not take away the fact that me selling my house for a few days that I'm gone to someone else should be illegal. You're also assuming that I want to throw out EVERY SINGLE LAW OMGBBQ. Talk about being "extreme." Good gosh Charlie Brown.

> regardless of what Joe the landlord remembered or didn't remember to put into his stock lease.

There's this magical thing called lawyers. They're pretty cool once you get to know them, even the "sharks." Without them, writing contracts would be to hard for my small brain :(

> And what's the difference between cooking for friends who give you money for groceries and opening a restaurant in your apartment? You can always make an argument that appeals to the extreme in making your case, but thankfully that doesn't make it a legally relevant argument.

I'm actually a big advocator of people starting up restaurants in small capacity places (remember, we can be a vegan restaurant with absolutely no use of a stove, only an oven which means a safe, contained, and controlled environment) such as homes and/or "food trucks".

And you were right about the AS comment, good call :) (like I said not an AR fan I was under the presumption that it had to do something with business owners leaving due to all of these rules and leaving the "big guys" to look after everyone).

"Steve was very fast thinking and wanted to do things, I wanted to build things. I think Atlas Shrugged was one of his guides in life."

My own personal experience is that there are some very powerful ideas in that book. It's gratifying to see that great people like Woz and Jobs also think so.

Edit: Why is this being downvoted? It is an actual quote from the interview with Woz, with attribution. It's on-topic, and it helps complete the picture of what he actually said. How is that a bad thing? Why bowdlerize Woz?

That said I do agree that a very small number of people in any organization are responsible for the lion's share of the productivity and are inadequately compensated for that.

Information theory is where its most important principles come from: competitive advantage, supply and demand, gains of trade, reversion to mean, diminishing returns, etc.

History is the other half of economics: using information theory, psychology, and unreliable data, explain why and how a given scenario unfolded.

If you don't have a strong grasp of either of those but read Atlas Shrugged and call yourself an economist, you might be Paul Ryan.

From the introduction written in "The Fountainhead":

"Was The Fountainhead written for the purpose of presenting my philosophy? ... This is the motive and purpose of my writing: the projection of an ideal man. The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal ... Let me stress this: my purpose is NOT the philosophical enlightenment of my readers..."

...and so forth. Emphasis was hers, BTW. Having read both "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead", I didn't need to read an author's introduction to know that they were both simply works of fiction intended to glorify ideas that she thought were important. What's most frustrating is the way people conflate those ideas; the notion of a society without any regulation at all was only a minor element in a work of fiction intended to describe this complete exaltation of creativity.

I would have expected that reverence for the creative human spirit would be better received here.

1. Start reading Atlas Shrugged. When John Galt starts making his speech, skip to the next chapter. You have now gained the ability to skip pieces of a book that are really, incredibly tedious.

2. Start reading Twilight. When it starts feeling like torture to continue, stop. Use the rest as fire starters for your grill. You have gained the ability to not read books you discover that you don't like.

Take those unfinished off the shelf and get rid of them. Sell them to the used independent. Donate them. Burn them. Landfill them. Whatever. You can reclaim that shelf space for books you not only want to finish, but re-read and finish again.

One could read Selinger or Pamuk or Sartre or Hesse, to realize that this second component is much more important, while masters like Nabokov whose speciality is playing with words might show you that wording is also important.)

The transition from reading to writing ones own texts, not imitating or copy pasting is also not clear, and, of course, one never could become a good writer only by excessive reading. Writing and speaking are different cognitive tasks from reading or listening.

So what? Reading of good code is important, it teaches style, how to be brief, concise, precise. But where to find the good code? Well, the recursive list functions in Scheme are worth reading. Some parts of Haskell Prelude are worth reading, some macros of Common Lisp, etc.

The code of "the top writers" are worth reading. Code from PAIP or On Lisp or SICP are obvious examples, while some code, like from Practical CL which is mostly a mechanical translation of OO stuff only adds more confusion.

So, reading "good" code is still the must, the same way that reading Catcher In The Rye or Zen And Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance or Atlas Shrugged is still the must.

But programming is about writing, which means expressing ones own ideas and realizations and understanding, so one must have these in the first place.

In this sense programming is like writing a poetry - it must emerge and form in ones mind before it could be written down. The best poetry is written exactly like this - committed to the paper suddenly as it emerges, without any later changes.

This reflects the process of "emergence" of ideas or profs in a mind of scientists who are continuing to persue a problem for years - suddenly it is here, as if it came from subconscious. It seems that the best code, like these classic Lisp procedures or parts of Prelude has been written this way.

Of course, reading Java is as meaningless as reading graphomans or some lame and lenthy political pamphlet in a third-rate newspaper.)

"If you are male and between the ages of 13 and 21 this book should be considered harmful and potentially dangerous. If you are high achieving academically but socially awkward you should not read this book as it may exacerbate anti-social personality disorders."

Yes, I have read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the last couple of years, and they were viewpoint-changing events for me. They are lengthy, but it was worth the read for me. My key takeaway is that personal freedom and the ability for individuals to focus on their goals with as little artificial interference as possible leads to the greatest societal gain.

Thinking Fast and Slow. (Recommended in other responses but I’d have to second this one. Incredible for reasoning about your own reasoning).

What the Buddha Taught: (Walpola Rahula): a short intro to Buddhism. There are some really powerful ideas from this age old religion, that can definitely help you think about your own happiness and what material possessions actually give you.

The Innovators Dilemma: a must read for startup founders, I think it’s the best model for thinking about technology and why startups and adoption often fails.

Atlas shrugged (Ayn Rand): completely transformative book for looking at our world, America particularly. Th perspective it gives you may not be in the best, or most human way, but I’ve found no other book that forces you to empathize with capitalism like this one.

Many, many people hate it, but most of those who hate it has not read it - they would be shocked, for example, to know that one of her heroes pays his workers more than the norm and more than what the other unions require (he does so, so that he can have the best workers), and how the heroes are not above, or unable to, do manual work.

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are by Alan Watts - Gave me spirituality without supernatural beliefs that I can lean on when all else fails. (Someone else mentioned The Wisdom of Insecurity by the same author, it works just as well)

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand - I don't necessarily endorse it either as a work of literature or philosophy, but it gave me a little push that ultimately sent me on a very deep journey exploring my ethical beliefs.

At the risk of being down-voted (but less so due to this very sentence), the quote below can be true for everyone and I believe it to be very important Interpreting it I would say that a creator is free to choose a license, any attempt to try and force the use of another license upon a creator than that of his choosing will lead to paradoxes in freedom. I.e., such a definition can not be applied to all humans (for example: I can force conditions upon you by which you should share your work, you can do so to me and you can they force me to not share my work or at least under arbitrary conditions):

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

-John Galt (Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged, which is a nice book if you like the philosophy of freedom)

With regards to forcing "a mind" I love this piece of literature: [0]

[0] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html

An excerpt:

Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

Economics in One Lesson is so cogent that it will, I think, let you absorb a great deal. And then the Creature from Jekyll Island, which is really a history book that reads like a thriller, will let you see how the departure from economics has had an effect on the country-- an effect the most recent version of which you correctly identified. (Which was impressive, frankly, can't tell you how many times people argued with me about house prices between 1998-2007. Sadly, going back to them in 2008-2010 and saying "See, I was telling you this!" didn't earn any kudos for my having called it correctly... I think their worldview is plastic and easily gets remapped by TV news.)

Anyway, the departure from economics is for very sound reasons-- it profits the people who are peddling the bad stuff. But that also means we can profit from it too.

Anyway, I just wanted to give you the books I thought would be most effective for you. I read a lot of investment books when I needed to learn how to invest (Vick's books on Warren Buffett I found particularly interesting-- now I calculate what my return will be before I make the investment. People assume that buying stocks is really risky, but the reality is risk is quantifiable. I can buy a stock and know that I will be able to sell it for a specific price at a specific time-- you can calculate this!)

Anyway, good luck! I admire your datamining-- there's a lot of opportunity for you out there if you keep that up.

"My sister. My dear sister. Oh, she'll think she's great, won't she?"

"You dislike your sister, Mr. Taggart?" He made the same sound; its meaning was so eloquent that she needed no other answer. "Why?" she asked.

"Because she thinks she's so good. What right has she to think it? What right has anybody to think he's good? Nobody's any good."

"You don't mean it, Mr. Taggart."

"I mean, we're only human beings—and what's a human being? A weak, ugly, sinful creature, born that way, rotten in his bones—so humility is the one virtue he ought to practice. He ought to spend his life on his knees, begging to be forgiven for his dirty existence. When a man thinks he's good—that's when he's rotten. Pride is the worst of all sins, no matter what he's done."

"But if a man knows that what he's done is good?"

"Then he ought to apologize for it."

"To whom?"

"To those who haven't done it."

Rand was a philosopher-writer. She wrote two famous books, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which codify her philosophy, Objectivism. Objectivism has Man as a divinely rational, self-interested, high-achieving capitalist at its center. According to Objectivism, this is what you must strive for, and society must not get in the way (Laissez-faire). She also has a special take on gender relations, for example all her protagonists, both male and female, are single rich genius capitalist workaholics who don't have children since they have no time for such matters.

Although her books (and philosophy) are somewhat simple and two dimensional, it's still interesting to read and ponder, so she became somewhat rich and famous. This led to her ego going into orbit, so eventually a cult around her formed, and apparently she became a bit difficult, casting out members who didn't agree with her, including her lover(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Rand was a philosopher-writer. She wrote two famous books, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which codify her philosophy, Objectivism. Objectivism has Man as a divinely rational, self-interested, high-achieving capitalist at its center. According to Objectivism, this is what you must strive for, and society must not get in the way (Laissez-faire). She also has a special take on gender relations, for example all her protagonists, both male and female, are single, rich, genius, capitalist workaholics working as solitary inventor-engineers who don't have children since they have no time for such matters.

Although her books (and philosophy) are somewhat simple and two dimensional, it's still interesting to read and ponder, so she became somewhat rich and famous. This led to her ego lifting off and reaching orbit, so eventually a cult around her formed, and apparently she became a bit difficult, casting out members who didn't agree with her, including her lover(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

A moments thought, if you know anything of Rands works, would demonstrate this to you. If you read The Foundtainhead, then you know that Roark gave up work for years because he had higher values in life than simply to maximize his income. And Atlas Shrugged was about a man who did the same, and took a bunch of others with him -- not because they thought this was the best way to optimize their long-term money making potential, but because the rest of the world had come to regard them, being creative and productive individuals, as chattel. (You might also recall that while there were a number of titans of industry, one was a composer, another was a professor, another an train engineer, etc.)

I don't know what it is about Rand that makes people think they're entitled to sling nonsense about her views around without the slightest effort at substantiation. You say Rand's is a "fairy tale land where everybody is always capable of making rational decisions with perfect information" and "Markets are always perfectly efficient". This is your fairy tale about Rand's views. I studied all of Rand's works quite extensively from about the age of 17 to 27, and I'm confident you cannot demonstrate that Rand held such views.

a) You're spot on she didn't want to destroy the govt. She was explicitly a minarchist, and she swapped major arugments and ridicule with the Ancaps of the time (like Murray Rothbard)

b) The communism hate gets floated most, but my read of Atlas Shrugged was that she placed the collectivists at the same evil level as the church, crony capitalists, and postmodernists, to the point of having characters who 1-dimensionally represented each of them (she's literally got a lobbyist character called "Wesley Mouch").

That's why it's always hilarious to me when I see neocon congressfolk saying that Atlas Shrugged is their favorite book: she hated the church as much as the government (and would've likely hated those politicians as well).

Poked around some articles after writing some of this, found this one to be pretty neutral and illustrates my point a little better: https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-paul-ryan-ayn-rand...

“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."

Funny, I found the people in Atlas Shrugged to be two dimensional bores that didn't talk to each other but gave long rambling speeches.

Nobody in that book acted the way humans acted and for some reason that world had entropy turned up to 11.

The philosophy aside, the book was horrible ordeal full of people that I just wanted to punch in the nuts.

It makes you feel like you have an innate duty to do productive work.

The publishers are going to go through the same process the music industry went through for 7-10 years and hopefully we'll eventually have DRM free books. The difference between books and music is that while someone might want to listen to a particular song out of their thousand song library at any given time, it's much more unlikely that someone would like that kind of random access to their books. I just hope DRM will only be an annoyance and won't sabotage eBook reader adoption.

But I don't think modern readers of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, et al., are listening to her as a preacher, to apply her ideas to the entirety of their lives, but rather as inspiration for their own philosophy. That is, after all, one reason to read literature that challenges your opinions.

That's why I read and appreciate Rand. It's not because the American Libertarian movement made her a mascot.

Take her introduction to The Fountainhead that she wrote in 1968, years after it was published and became successful:

> It is not in the nature of man--nor of any living entity--to start out by giving up, by spitting in
one's own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption whose rapidity
differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run
down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it.
Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that
maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, of abandoning one's values; practicality,
of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be
betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the
dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential.
There are very few guideposts to find. The Fountainhead is one of them.
This is one of the cardinal reasons of The Fountainhead's lasting appeal: it is a confirmation of
the spirit of youth, proclaiming man's glory, showing how much is possible.

By posting this I hope to defend Rand in the sense of helping people realize she does more then what the modern political landscape has created for her. I was certainly inspired by her approach to self, as I imagine countless others have been.

But the hate is mostly for the ideas, not the writing. The worlds are certainly fictional. Things are not as black and white as she paints them. The heroes are small minority of supremely talented, hard-working people battling bureaucracy and incompetence. Rand assumes everyone is born on a level playing field and the choices people may determine where they land.

My advice is that anyone Atlas Shrugged is a must read for anyone with an ounce of entrepreneurial spirit. Take it with a grain of salt though.

And when the heroes do help each other, just in case you think they might be supposed to be doing it out of a sense of kinship, Rand tends to have them say things like this:

"I hope you know it's not for your sake that I wanted to help you fight."

He smiled; it was a faint, friendly smile. "I know," he said.

"It's not out of pity or charity or any ugly reason like that. Look, I intended to give you the battle of your life, down there in Colorado. I intended to cut into your business and squeeze you to the wall and drive you out, if necessary"

He chuckled faintly; it was appreciation. "You would have made a pretty good try at it, too," he said.

"Only I didn't think it would be necessary. I thought there was enough room there for both of us."

"Yes," he said. "There was."

"Still, if I found that there wasn't, I would have fought you, and if I could make my road better than yours, I'd have broken you and not given a damn about what happened to you"

As with all religious texts, Atlas Shrugged produces its blind devotees who will assert literally anything to avoid confrontation with any other aspects that might conflict with their worldview. But it's a curiously selective reading of the text that argues a book whose key moral messages include the slogan "I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" is about a personal system of individuals helping each other, and not the negation of said system in favour of the logic of self-interest and cold hard cost-benefit analysis.

Anthem was a really good work about the dangers to an individual of a collectivist utilitarian society. I think it should be regarded up there with 1984 and Brave New World. Atlas Shrugged was a bad work of art with a keen idea. In a lot of ways, I don't think Rand had any idea what she was writing about and fetishized her own works into this strange hypercapitalist ideal. The idea that society could be abandoned by "the one percent" and left to languish has become a common theme of modern science fiction, especially in young adult fiction and anime.

Capitalism will still work from the perspective of human progress, but the progress is becoming less and less shared. Spreading out the wealth curve will logically increase human development as those with potential receive more opportunity.

It's a fun mental exercise to temporarily adopt an extreme viewpoint and think it through to its logical conclusion.

If that's all the guy said, you are being too judgmental too quickly.

If you like those, check out some of her nonfiction books: The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, Philosophy: Who Needs It, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (these are but a few - Rand wrote a long series of nonfiction books).

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith (a philosophy professor at UT-Austin) is excellent because it unpacks Ayn Rand's ethical system in an academic style. Finally, Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand gives a comprehensive view of Rand's entire philosophy.

Light reading (not by Objectivist authors, and not in any particular order):

Masters of Doom: How Two Guys Created an Empire and Transformed Pop Culture by David Kushner

The Soul of A New Machine by Tracy Kidder

The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA by James Watson

What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman

At that time, some people probably had a very strong belief in communism, not having seen the really dark sides of it yet. And also, some other people probably saw any kind of social democracy as a threat and considered it all the same as communism, not yet having seen the future of increasing economic inequality, the 1% vs. the 99% and all that.

It's probably good to hear what Rand has to say, but it should be put in the right context (of more than 50 years in the past). Nowadays our western economic systems have different kinds of problems to tackle.

I read Atlas Shrugged (painfully) and kept being bothered by the simplistic ideals put forth. Your argument seems to me to be the perfect counter-example to her deluded ideals.

Thanks!

To me, it seems that what you describe as the 'key idea' of Atlas Shrugged is actually two separate ideas; 'individual is more important than the state', and 'sacrifice of a few innocents for the many is not morally valid'. Leaving the individual aside for the moment, for the second idea, how do you reconcile the reasonable notion of not sacrificing innocents for the many with cases where the many will suffer unfairly (e.g. the Trolley Problem [1]) when it is in your power to act?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

However, I actually enjoyed the book and the story. Before I read the book, I had a lot of random and poorly formed ideas about what was economically moral, and this really helped me to crystallize my viewpoints.

I always like to think Ayn Rand's selfish desires and socialism could work together. Just think of taxes going to reasonable causes (such as infrastructure or health care) as forced self-interest :)

But I have seen it done so many times. Writers take a work of fiction such as a book or movie where the author generally has a similar outlook and use that to draw lessons. You see that a lot on the left, as well as on the right with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I don't think it is convincing anyone. Anybody can write a book where the people they admire become heroes and the policy they espouse has a good outcome, or the people they despise become villains and the policy they are against leads to bad outcomes. How close the book universe is to the real universe is a different story.

If you go that way, you will inevitably end up subscribing Austrian economics (and also libertarian justice/politics) which is basically a non-existent area in mainstream economics but is the only consistent theory and kind of automagically leads to many of Taleb's criticisms (e.g., second order effects).

For the interested I recommend as an introduction:

- Atlas shrugged (A. Rand, for those who have time)
- Economics in one lesson (H. Hazlitt, for those who don't have time)

Also, its interesting to note (from an unscientific random survey) that they are charging less for the Kindle Edition when it comes to bestsellers (which are probably in hardback). I wonder if this is in an effort to hook potential buyers and then increase margins when Kindle owners buy older titles?

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.

Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged are engaging works of science fiction. I recommend everyone read at least one. And then keep in mind this quote [1]:

“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."

[0] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-rya...
[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-...

If you're looking for delicious, eloquent prose, try Fitzgerald or Joyce. Rand's feat with Atlas Shrugged was different -- not just literary. She wrote a tremendous novel of ideas. As I mentioned in one of the other threads, imagine if all of the world's philosophers wrote significant works of fiction to help explain their ideas to the general public!

Also, I don't think that the existence of authors whose strength is the beauty of their prose diminishes Rand's accomplishment in the least. Hers is a different accomplishment and there is room on the book shelf for both.

This is the immaturity and fantasy world that I was referring above. For all intended purpose, a place where FDA, SEC, tax authority (IRS) don't exist and are out of people "hair" exist -- many of those places are pretty scary to live in, Somalia is one of them, other poor countries are also there. You'd think those would be a libertarian paradise, no controls, no need to pay taxes, but reality the opposite is true.

She could have distilled her viewpoint into a couple of paragraphs (it doesn't seem particularly subtle or complex), but that would probably have made it too easy to argue with her supporters, who can pointedly ask, "well, have you read it?"

No, I have not. I tried and it was terrible.

For great fiction with a healthy dose of philosophy, I'd recommend reading The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco instead.

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie, because it changed my understanding of people for the better.

"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" by Richard Feynman, because it gave me a model for how to enjoy life.

"Models" by Mark Manson, because it helped shape my understanding of heterosexual relationships.

"An Introduction to General Systems Thinking" by Gerald Weinberg, because it illuminates the general laws underlying all systems.

Fiction:

"Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert A Heinlein, because it showed me a philosophy and "spirituality", for lack of a better word, that I could agree with.

"The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, because they showed me how human systems break, and they provided human models for how to see and live in, through, and past those broken systems.

"Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" by Eliezer Yudkowsky, because it set the bar (high) for all future fiction, especially when it comes to the insightful portrayal of the struggle between good and evil.

“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." - John Rogers

The first 25 pages were BRUTAL, but after that I was hooked. I finished the book in less than a week then bought the book for myself and read it again. I didn't need to make the leap from Fountain Head at all.

I'm been an active Objectivist for the last two years and I've met dozens of others. They're a diverse bunch (I know Objectivist actors, Objectivist musicians, Objectivist academics, Objectivist finance guys, tons of Objectivist programmers), but in general, I'd say they're way more friendly, less cynical and more optimistic than the majority of people I meet. They're fun to be around and are usually working towards some personally meaningful life goals.

I do think that teenagers probably shouldn't read Atlas Shrugged -- they're too likely to take away a shallow understanding of the message. I first read it just before my 25th birthday, and I think it's best read in your mid-20s, when your youthful idealism starts crashing into practical reality.

If you fail to understand these characteristics are not necessarily tied to either of the groups, yes the warning label is appropriate. If you do understand this - and I hope some males between the ages of 13 and 21 do - this book can help you improve your attitude towards work. After reading Atlas Shrugged I must say I'm more eager to get things done and ignore pessimistic people who think things simply cannot be done because it is a lot of work.

It definitely helped me.

This cannot be overstated enough. I read Atlas Shrugged (no other Rand books) and seriously feel I must have read a different book than the one that gets such vitriol spat at it on a constant basis.

And that vitriol? It's typically attacking strawmen that I never remotely picked up from the book.

I think the strangest thing about it all is you get plenty of folks saying how the current government are ayn rand acolytes... If they are, they are certainly doing it wrong. Atlas Shrugged basically described and warned about exactly what is going on in government today - regulatory capture, corruption, gains going to the folks who do absolutely nothing vs. those providing value, etc. Essentially exactly what is going on in the government and corporate America today - it's more profitable to play politics than it is to be productive and produce something of value via hard work.

Make no mistake: In Ayn Rand's world Trump is one of the moochers and would be one of the leading villains if he was a character in Atlas Shrugged. It's almost comical how much he would fit right into that plot.

So I really feel I got something out of it that is about the opposite from everyone else. I also don't understand why it rubs people the wrong way at such a fundamental level. I have to say it makes me somewhat suspicious of such people - if they can twist meanings around so effectively to fit their narrative and have such strong feelings about that fabrication I wonder where else in their life and beliefs they are doing the same.

In the end Atlas Shrugged was an overly verbose book that contained some semi-interesting parables and then smacked you with them repeatedly for 1500 pages. I mostly enjoyed it and it certainly made me think - but I wouldn't even put it in my top 10 of "life changing" books out there.

Some people really buy into Objectivism.

Ayn Rand's description sounded great when I was a teenager.

Living it for real, I know it is utter bullshit.

Carbon Fiber Composites are far stronger, stiffer, and lighter than any steel, and less expensive in small volumes. It's more expensive in large volumes, but R&D is mitigating that.

Yes, managers and even engineers have a bias against it because it is new and untested, takes more work to include in designs.

Yet, it is being steadily adopted.

---------------
In terms of govt, sure, a small govt with voluntary contributions sounds great. Until you realize (which you haven't) that this is setting up EXACTLY the commons problem: it is in everyone's interest too support the government, but in every individual's interest to freeload or over-use and under-pay. Eventually even the goodest of the do-gooders will be sick & tired of being mooched off of, and you're back to anarchy. If you doubt this, go look at the population of any commercially viable fish; ask how they're doing.

The fact of the matter is that if you ACTUALLY think through any of these ideas, they are hollow. That is the reason they have never been implemented.

Still, it's a good read. Especially the economic mechanics of the universe -- it's fascinating to read about the technology, culture, sexism, and politics from the first half of the 20th century. That alone makes it worthwhile. For example, the characters are constantly smoking cigarettes, to the point where pivotal moments in the plot are revealed, more often than not, because of a smoke break.

John Rogers

-- John Rogers

I don't know, maybe a big part of it is that I've been reading Atlas Shrugged lately (in my opinion, the most important work of modern fiction), and seeing several parallels between the characters in the book and people in our society today. So many people feel a righteous entitlement to things that they did not build, and calling this site a disservice just rubbed me the wrong way.

I think that users have a right to express their opinion, but not to denounce a choice that is made. The beauty of freedom and capitalism is that if you don't like something, you're not forced to endure it. To try to make someone feel guilty (or obligated in some way) for something they have built, rather than just ignoring it, is quite possibly one of the worst infractions that one can commit against an individual.

Claiming rampant false accusations of rape and violence is one of the most prevalent men’s rights and equity feminist talking points.23 Who Stole Feminism?, a classic among conservative “feminists” published the following year by Christina Hoff Sommers, similarly argues that “gender” or “radical” feminists lie about rates of rape and domestic violence. Speaking on campus sexual assault in 2014, Sommers, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, repeated the same themes of “false accusations” and “[i]nflated statistics,” declaring, “I believe that the rape culture movement is fueled by exaggerated claims of intimacy and a lot of paranoia about men.”24 A spokesperson for A Voice for Men (AVFM), one of the most prominent men’s rights organizations, rejected rape “hysteria…as a scam” and baselessly claimed that sexual assault affects only about two percent of women—far from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s one-in-five statistic.25

Although equity feminists reject the existence of structural constraints on women, like Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) they suggest that American boys and men suffer at the hands of gender feminists. In 2000, Sommers wrote The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, and a flurry of concern over boys’ educational achievements in 2013 landed her in major outlets including The New York Times, TIME Magazine, and The Atlantic. Psychologist Helen Smith, one of IWF’s “Modern Feminists,” suggested in 2012 that “the deck is so stacked against men that they are ‘going Galt,’” a reference to Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, an MRA favorite.26

Equity feminism’s depiction of women as liars with “victim mentalities” dovetails alarmingly with (and legitimizes) the online manifestation of the men’s rights movement, which uses more virulent and hateful rhetoric to convey the same argument.

"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." - John Rogers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

-- John Rogers

"The Watchmen" by Alan Moore. It may be a graphic novel, but the issues it raises on ethics and morality are chilling. I still think about the ending every now and then, and I haven't read it in over a year.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. In addition to the primary themes on class, race, and the killing of innocents, it has an interesting thread on living with your own moral code.

"Catch 22" by Joseph Heller. Ostensibly a satire of the military, this is a good self-reflection on the American soul (circa 1961).

"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!". The life of a Nobel winning physicist and renowned professor doesn't have to be boring.

"Everything is Illuminated" by Jonathan Safran Foer. The premise is too complicated to describe here, but it really delves into the cruelty and self-protectionism of the human heart. Plus, its hysterical!

"Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Describes the horror of war and the effect it has on the rest of your life.

"Chronicle of a Death Foretold" by Gabriel Garcia Marques. Tells the story of a murder that everyone in town knew would happen, but nobody tried to stop.

> and especially the deduction from A is A to objectivism being true

This is a very understandable, but major, misconception. Very understandable because Atlas Shrugged is a novel, not a formal philosophy treatise, so how would you know any better? (Without spending a crap ton of time studying other Objectivist literature, that is, like I did.) Major because Objectivism is induced from reality, not deduced.

For instance, take ethics. The Objectivist ethics looks at the nature of man and then figures out what man needs to have a happy life. Well, how do we know about the nature of man? We don't deduce it from A is A; that would be impossible. Rather, we look at lots and lots of examples of men and determine what is always common vs. what differs from one to the next.

Almost everything in Rand's philosophy is very bottom-up, based on looking at tons and tons of examples out there in reality and then forming a generalization that holds in a specific, delimited context. But that isn't evident from her writing, at least not at first. And our whole intellectual culture today is very top-down. So it's easy to think the Rand is a top-down thinker and not a bottom-up thinker.

By "bottom-up" I mean starting with concretes in reality. "Top-down" is starting from intellectual abstractions, like A is A, or God, or "a society is only as morally good as its worst-off member," or the libertarian non-aggression principle, or "from each according to his ability," and so on.

I read Decartes in high school during the teenage existential crises we all go through and it blew my mind. Opened me up to the power of thinking from first principles and a love of philosophy and questioning everything. Cogito, ergo sum!

"Atlas Shrugged" gets a lot of hate, but it's a phenomenally important book. It was one of those that completely consumed me during the read. I could not put it down – stayed up late, work up early, and rushed home from work to get back to it.

"Rework", "Getting Real", the other books by the old 37signals crew, and of course "The Lean Startup" really changed the way I thought about software development and business. I credit them for much of my startup/programming success.

Taleb's Incerto series changed how I thought about investing, risk, and life in general. "Fooled by Randomness" and "Antifragile" are especially good.

>Rand’s simplistic Objectivist worldview couldn’t be better designed to appeal to sheltered middle-and-upper-class suburban white boys like me

>As soon as I befriended people who were not suburban white dudes, and once I understood that they had to work five times as hard to enjoy half of the privilege that I enjoyed, I realized that Rand was singing a heroic ode to the comfortable.

Stop posting racism that's wrapped up as self-flagellation. It's getting tiresome.

Ironically, your saying that you don't like Rand because other people don't like her is going along with the very principle that Rand most stands against. Make your own opinions, based on your own logic. Don't follow what other people say. Read it yourself and decide.

Which is why healthcare-as-insurance is so perverse.

So, someone probably couldn't get insurace that covers their preexisting condition (which wouldn't be fair to the insurer), but they could get coverage for other things.

Would you perhaps like to volunteer at a hospital some time? Maybe you could explain objectivist principles to parents with children born with 'pre-existing conditions' like spina bifida or taysach's syndrome? Explain that they'll have to deal with a child's debilitating illness without financial aid? Maybe you could read Atlas Shrugged during storytime at a children's cancer ward? You could explain to all of those little 'Takers' how unfair their treatment is to their parent's insurance companies?

If you've enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged, which I'm planning to read, try reading "The Fountain Head" by the same author.

Personally I find it fascinating that the characters in the book (and Ayn Rand) constantly reiterate that "decisions should be made on logic and rationality instead of emotions" but the entire book is driven by pathos instead of any logical argument.

All the "good guys and gals" and smart, beautiful and horny. All the bad guys are ugly and stupid. They constantly use tautologies ("A is A") as if it was a way to debate with logic (it's not). And it never provides any attempt to prove that the entire premise is true or even feasible. Say what you want about Karl Marx but he did at least attempt to make a rational argument.

All that said you may still enjoy the book. Personally I've read a lot other books which make the same, or similar, point but better. Animal Farm springs to mind (no, it's not about objectivism, but it is about how power corrupts people, or animals).

The internet is full of parodies, etc., but there really aren't many people who dislike the book and are also capable of persuasively arguing against it without resorting to religious authority or mocking sneers (or both).

Why? Probably because most people haven't read the book. It's not the easiest read. There are great audio versions, but audiobooks are generally viewed with disdain by literary types...

- Benjamin Franklin's autobiography (translated into modern English).

- PG's "Hackers and Painters" (why I joined this forum).

- Tim Ferris's "Four Hour Work Week" (has to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, but has many very helpful and practical tips and ideas.)

- "Mastery" by George Leonard

- "Good to Great" by Jim Collins

And finally (and I don't want to turn this into a political flamewar, "grain of salt" applies here as well, etc, etc) but the book that had the most influence on me was "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Unlike all the others on the list above, it's a work of fiction, but I think it is the best at capturing and romanticizing the joy and euphoria that you feel when you build something that works.

Personally, though, I find the "selfish jerk" thing more as a result of "The Fountainhead" than "Atlas Shrugged," though at the same time, I think TF is the right book to read before AS. TF prepares you for the "self", while AS applies all that to society.

All that said, while Atlas Shrugged can be an extremely depressing book (the constant feeling of "How can this get worse" coupled with the inevitable "Oh, this is how"), it's also a very uplifting book. After almost every reading session with AS, I found myself with a burning desire to work, to improve my business, to "go get it" and seize life. The heroes resonate very well with those who absolutely love their work.

The only other book that has come close to as uplifting a feeling as Atlas Shrugged (for me) is Founders at Work, because many of the people interviewed in that book share the same passion for their work as the heroes in AS, and pull off monumental achievements.

Will the movie be any good? I'm not holding my breath, but I'd love to see someone like Cate Blanchett play Dagny.

1984 by George Orwell

For an example that many consider trivial, cursing is at an all time high. Cursing's purpose in life is to convey and share anger: it is not conducive to high quality, cheerful life. There is research in psychology that shows that expressing anger leads to more, not less, of it. I actually consider quitting HackerNews entirely due to the poor quality of auto-removal of cursing in titles, text, and remarks. I am very repulsed by the ruby community for the same reason. For exaple, ruby sub, an email client has an homepage that features cursing. I just feel ick and don't even want to try it any more.

A second glaring example, imho, is vandalism. Nowadays, when I accosted a vandal in NYC, he gave me the NY Times' justifications for his crime. He said "it's art!" and "I'm black and I'm angry!" He has absorbed all the anti-capitalist myths; I am sure he never read Atlas Shrugged! The amount of property destruction is enormous. That is crime and that is way way up.

In some ways, the world is getting alot better: Ayn Rand's philosophy is being developed and publicized. Those who uphold her ideas of independence, rationality, etc, are very civilized. Thus it's a race between her ideas and those of Kant.

A key point you miss: wealth is perishable. Food rots. Weeds grow. Machines rust. Buildings crumble. Durable money is inedible, useful only when exchanged for something perishable.

You really need to read Atlas Shrugged. Comes a point when us producers get sick of you looters, and drop out of society. I'm already feeling enormous strain from my 30-50% tax bracket (most going to a welfare system you want), and debate switching lifestyle to the self sufficient farming I was raised on and which your utopia would receive 0% of.

"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." [1]

I am hopeful for any social discussion of character.

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Rogers

As for the "lack of empathy" - I actually intended to add a coda, as to how the life of young Alyssa Rosenbaum was pretty miserable, and how I, as someone who grew up behind the Iron Curtain and actually lived and suffered for two decades under a stalinist-like dictatorship (unlike armchair libertarians who read Atlas Shrugged at Starbucks in a comfy western city, all decked up in turtlenecks and designer jeans), I sort of understand her visceral reaction to the horrors of that kind of regime. No, not "sort of"; I truly understand - again unlike western readers.

But then I said to myself - this is the accidental "thought leader" of a movement, the rise of selfishness and base instincts, that - if left unchecked - would burn down the world and put a stop to the project that has started 6000 years ago in Sumer, and still going strong, that we call civilization.

So pardon me if there's another side of me that says "screw Ayn Rand and her insane mumblings".

However, I'm sure there are many, many Republicans who will buy it just to stick it on their bookshelf (unopened) to show how truly conservative they are. My father was one such person. He has had that book on his shelf since I was a small child, and to this day has yet to read it.

1) Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by Michio Kaku

2) The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand (I haven't read Atlas Shrugged yet. So cannot compare them.)

Yesterday I finished Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and it is a very good book too.

Currently reading: What They Teach you at Harvard Business School: My Two Years Inside the Cauldron of Capitalism by Philip Delves Broughton

It is long, and it is indeed preachy, but she nails so much about the human condition.

I do think that most people that complain about her don't really understand her work. In her eyes capitalism is an intrinsically _personal_ system, individuals helping each other.

The heroes of the story all have their companies named after themselves, while the "bad companies" are bland things like associated steel. Her point is that as soon as you divorce the individuality from capitalism, you get these bad outcomes. At the end of the day companies aren't companies, they're people.

To drive this home, the USSR treated people as interchangable inputs. If that's your policy you are completely ignoring people's individuality. Are they lazy? smart? work hard? People are not interchangable, and by respecting that the US outspent the USSR.

This "personal" capitalism is far different from the way our multinationals, governments, or even people, act today.

For a quick 1-hour introduction, see this Dave Rubin interview with Yaron Brook:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=089xOB9bbhU

For fiction illustrating the principles, you could read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.

https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145...

https://www.amazon.com/Fountainhead-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191153/

Or for non-fiction, try The Virtue of Selfishness.

https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversa...

Or if you prefer podcasts addressing practical questions, try The Peikoff Podcasts:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/peikoff-com-q-a-on-ayn-r...

Or search for specific questions here

http://www.peikoff.com/podcasts/

The fact of the matter is, on many occasions Paul Carr simply lies about what Rand said.

If Rand is so bad that someone should be embarrassed to be associated with her ideas--- why the need to lie about her ideas?

I'll answer that to you-- Rand's real crime is she demolish leftist anti-intellectualism and showed it for what it is.

It's not Rand they hate, its the mind. And their whole goal is to prevent you from being exposed to the ideas in Atlas Shrugged (which is why they focus on Rand, rather than the book, they don't even mention the book unless they have to and never the philosophy.)

"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."

~John Rogers

"The Fountainhead" was made into a movie in 1949. It's a decent movie, and Amazon has the DVD. It's amusing today because the protagonist, who is an architect, designs buildings that he insists are insanely great, but are just slab-sided office blocks. (His hatred of decorative spires has something going for it. There used to be a thing for putting useless pointy spires on top of office buildings, the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building being the classic examples. That's mostly died out in the US, although it still has a following in Dubai and some Asian cities.)

Taking Ayn Rand seriously is not good for you.

Why is taxing seen as punitive? Is it punitive when we tax middle class people? It's just a mechanism to collect funds for things that are better done with public money than private money. Since the rich stand to gain more from many of the investments, they should pay more. All those companies that make physical widgets? They have to be shipped, largely via roads. Their business and their continued success relies on well constructed roads, of course they should pay for them in the proportion that they use them.

> There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. So regression at it's finest. I think that someone hasn't had his history homework done.

Please, if you think the only options are state-socialism and laissez-faire capitalism then it's you who hasn't done their homework. Reading Atlas Shrugged doesn't count.

This is all boilerplate American-libertarian thinking. You don't understand evolution beyond "survival of the fittest", so don't use it to justify your arguments. Cancer is very successful at reproducing, it sucks up resources and bullies around the "weaker" cells, that doesn't mean it's a positive thing or something that will lead to long-term system-wide prosperity.

Before that I read the entire Game of Thrones series. Not really worth the time invested if you ask me, but it was fun nonetheless. Might be one of those few books where watching their TV version is more enjoyable (disclosure: haven't watched the series).

On the technical side, I'm trying to read Google's papers once in a while. Good mixture of theoretical background with practical approaches.

There are some ideas in there worth reading, and plenty that today seem dated. Anyway, it's healthy to read things that you disagree with..

Thanks for the suggestion of The Name of the Rose, added it to my wish list.

Rand never posited that people are born productive. Productive people are productive by virtue of doing things, in Ayn's world...while a lot of other people are envious of the doing and stand in their way. People can become productive. Individualism requires that people can do whatever it is they want to do, as long as it doesn't harm another. Rand wasn't talking about what childhood occurrences make for a Galt or a Roarke. Perhaps she believed they were pre-destined, but I can't think of a single instance where that was indicated in her writing (and I went through a two year Rand phase in college...I've read just about everything she ever wrote). And certainly not in Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

Gladwell, on the other hand, is saying that people we view as stars in their field are sometimes given a more obvious path to becoming stars than others, and thus things society does can help or hinder people who would be productive. I don't think Rand would argue that there aren't people in the world who can help you as well as people in the world who can hinder you.

Note that I'm not making any judgment call on either idea. I'm just not seeing how anyone could come away thinking this article is a useful addition to the subject (or subjects, in this case, since there are two under discussion, and somehow the author believes they contradict one another). I agree with others that this is blogspam, making use of hot button names like Gladwell and Rand. It's almost as if they have a machine that churns out high hit ideas...

Objectivism touches on a few things, some pretty mundane. But the most controversial aspect of it would be this part:

"that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism".

It's been a while since I read Atlas Shrugged now, but as I recall, she essentially sees the role of government as being limited to the defense of both the society and the individual from external threats (so, military and justice systems, respectively). Everything else has its place in the market.

-- John Rogers

Suppose we should add ships without laws to the list. The entire Sea Steading concept makes no sense.

1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.

2: If there were no laws you had to live under - why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales? Oh yeah - it's because you are still subject to laws like everyone else.

3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws - what's to stop someone from killing you and taking your stuff? Who is going the enforce those rights? I government like entity? I thought we were libertarians here!

4: What happens in the case of an emergency? Do you rely on other governments to bail you out? Will you help the people on your boat - I mean what is the return on saving someone else's life? Who's responsible for the screw up? What about medical treatment? Do you not treat a guy who can't pay but has a festering open wound you could easily fix?

Libertarianism - just like this Steading initiative - is a fairy tale for nerds that does not work in reality. But hey - a fella' can dream can't he?

Successful business people are like children, give them too much freedom, and they'll pollute the heck out of you given half a chance.

Governments are like adults, wield too much power and you beat the innovation out of the kids with authoritarian regimes.

You need both and you need good relationships between them - neither is better or worse than the other - they're just people.

In case it's not clear, Atlas Shrugged is a piece of fiction and using it to draw parallels to reality is like saying "I recommend watching Disney's The Lion King. Zoos keep hogs apart from lions because they think they can't get along".

As a sidenote to balance my scathing review, I rather liked one of her earlier novels, Fountainhead. If you want to read an Ayn Rand novel I'd go for that one, as it's more about a type of "rugged individualism" than an economic system. It directly grapples at the question of the nature of invention/innovation: whether as a product of individual genius or standing on the shoulder of giants. Obviously the novel has an answer but it's not exactly a solved question in real life, and at least some of Ellsworth Toohey's quotes aren't half bad.

The reason is that people who are doing better than others (and who are forced by the communist _ideology_ to share so that everyone is equal), would leave the commune.

That is why North Korea and USSR kept their citizens inside the Iron Wall border. It "worked" only by forcing the able to their knees.

> Evolution designed them to accept cultural assumptions

It's a bit presumptuous to squarely pin something like that on evolution. Evolution is likely to favor many things, including individualism and rationality. Yes, Aritstotle said that man is a political animal. Yet Aristotle didn't spend time observing baboons on the plains of Ethiopia.

I'm not sure where Ayn Rand stands as a writer because her writing is hard to separate from her philosophy as she chose writing as a tool to transmit her philosophical beliefs. I also loved Roark in the Fountainhead (yet I tend to identify more with her imperfect characters like Gail Wynand), and as I'm currently somewhere around p.300 in Atlas Shrugged (warning: as it is a very long book, my judgement of it may easily be a wrong one), I feel that she wrote Atlas Shrugged when her mind dogmatised her beliefs (the Fountainhead, I think, was written when she was still questioning herself and reading it feels like reading a bit more honest piece to me). Despite her later dogmatism, I respect her as a philosopher because she (a) opened my eyes to how absurd Hegel-derived philosophies are, and (b) made me understand the cult of Athena in the ancient Greece and the impact it likely to have had on Western civilization. Since Ayn Rand was so much courageous philosophically than Marx, I think it would be completely unfair to everyone involved to call Marx but not Rand a philosopher.

> an isolated human is weak and vulnerable

Not really, unless you immerse him/her into an unfamiliar society. Although I'm not a follower of Thoreau, I think he made a fair argument that it is not at all unhealthy to live outside of society. Now I'm not an advocate of moving into a cabin in the woods, I just wanted to point out that there exists a different perspective.

> leaving society amounts to suicide

No, leaving a society is much more like quitting cocaine than committing suicide. Society is a lot like a drug. It takes some time to become hooked, but once you do, it seems nigh impossible to leave. Hence the recent success of Facebook.

By my count, there are 3 jokes in this post, all juvenile:

* Atlas Shrugged is long. No really, it's a long book! Long books are stupid.

* Rand articulates questionable views on romantic relations based largely on notions of dominance. Ha ha, isn't she ridiculous!

* Rand's characters are caricatures. Or archetypes. Whatever.

That said, many people, including Rand supporters would agree that as a work of fiction it's mostly a thin structure to put forth Rand's ideas. It could almost be a collection of essays, as the book is a collection of monologues and improbable conversations with very little time devoted to character development.

That said, lots of books with big societal ideas tend to have these issues but Rand is particularly ham fisted. Reading Atlas shrugged one gets the impression that she set out to write a novel but kept meandering onto the editorial page. By way of comparison, 1984 is a book with big ideas about society that are more subtly expressed (though Orwell can get preachy as well).

To reveal my own bias, I find her point of view a rather flimsy sort of egotism. It's the internal narrative of the tortured, misunderstood genius projected out to society at large. The galling thing about Rand's writings is the complete lack of understanding or compassion wrt the structural causes of inequity in society. It's a heavy handed, hateful, and facile way to view the world once put under a lens.

Usually I'm pissed off by the anti-Rand flaming by people who prefer to misrepresent her ideas. But if you are going to play right into the cult of personality Rand worship with stuff like this, then you kind of brought it on yourself.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel which happens to contain Ayn Rand's philosophy. You can learn from it or not. I think there's some truth to all kinds philosophy, you just need to be discerning.

An analogy to this would be: "you can't seriously be a Christian. No academic thinks the Bible really happened."

I can still learn from the Bible, or the Church, even if it's all a lie.

If you're looking for a scholarly consensus on the "one true universal philosphy" you're going to be waiting awhile.

> Ayn Rand’s philosophy suggests that average working people are “takers.”

Ayn Rand glorifies working people, like the engineers on the Taggart line, the foremen at Rearden Steel, and Dagny's assistant Eddie Willers.

Her villains are mostly crooked rich businessmen who collude with crooked politicians.

It's hard to believe Paul even read Atlas Shrugged. His claim is a blatantly dishonest one.

> In reality, those in the best position to make money take all they can get, with no scruples about their working-class victims, because taking, in the minds of the rich, serves as a model for success.

It's deceptive to simply say "paying less taxes" == "taking."

It's true that if corporations pay low taxes, it's not fair for the middle class and small businesses to pay high taxes. But why jump to the conclusion that we need to raise corporate taxes, instead of lower everyone's taxes? (I'll leave answering that question as an exercise for the reader.)

Why are Paul Buchheit's ideas about how to spend _my_ money, more valid than my own? If I had money to invest, I'd put it in scientific and entrepreneurial ventures that _I_ deemed most worthwhile. If Paul is going to make those decisions for me, I'd rather just not contribute to a (rigged) social system in the first place.

(Source: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)

Or, more succinctly, "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." - John Rogers

"The other involves orcs."
-- John Rogers, "Kung-Fu Monkey" blog

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html

"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."

“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.” – John Rogers

Atlas Shrugged is an important intellectual work whether you agree with the philosophy or not. It's a long slog, but worth reading to understand the people who follow it. It will just take a long long time. I read it when I was doing regular coast to coast flights.

The Demon Haunted World is vintage Sagan. Very well worth readying, though as an HN member it's probably preaching to the choir.

For myself, I'm a 40 year old that leans Libertarian so I tend to agree with some of her political philosophy. I even tried reading Atlas Shrugged but it was so boring I put it down after about 100 pages.

- Kung Fu Monkey

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html

What about being trapped in a political system and/or culture that makes it impossible to live the life they imagine?

Every one of her novels touches (EDIT: focuses) on this. Anthem, We The Living, and Atlas Shrugged dealt more with the political, exhibiting characters who were unable to achieve their potential because of the political systems they had to endure. In The Fountainhead Roark spent decades suffering professionally and personally for living in a culture that values subjugation of the self to the interests of the crowd.

Also, Rand never promised that in her ideal society every individual would necessarily achieve whatever life they might imagine. Consistent with America's Declaration of Independence, it was the right to pursue happiness that she argued for.

Reading books changes people, just look at how many people credit "Atlas Shrugged" as the book that started their journey to become libertarian. Similarly, we see each and every day how effective is propaganda.

We see how hard it is to kill xenophobia, bigotry and other biases. But we also know how these develop, how people get radicalized by terrorist organizations. Yet the same thing happens albeit with a lower intensity and without a focused purpose when people watch/read/consume whatever the community/culture they are embedded in throws at them.

4chan changes people. QAnon changes people. The antivax hysteria changes people.

Psychedelic drugs change people, yet the opioid and crack epidemics were not about LSD, they are about an alcohol++. They are about legal painkillers, yet no one is really advocating banning painkillers.

Newer Stuff: Nine Stories (Salinger), The Razor's Edge (Maugham), Nausea (Sartre), Siddartha (Hesse), Road to Serfdom (Hayek), The Book (Watts), Design of Everyday Things (Norman), Atlas Shrugged (Rand), Invisible Man (Ellison), Debunking Economics (Keen), Blood Meridian (McCarthy), The Center Cannot Hold (Saks), This Time Is Different (Reinhart/Rogoff), Infinite Jest (Wallace), Calvin and Hobbes (Watterson)

All of these books are well written and have given me some perspective on interesting people/situations/ways of thinking.

I've spent a fair amount of time around left/right libertarians and anarchists, and it bothers me that they spend so much time debating this. One side will say "The problem is the evil corporations," and the other will say "The problem is that the government has too much power," but the argument is pointless because they are both correct.

But objectivist politics does blame poor people for their plight--or at best, simply ignores them and leaves them to their fate. "Not my problem" seems to be the general response.

I submit that, until everyone has been given equal opportunities to forge their own destiny, it's immoral to remove the safety net. And that even if people really did have equal opportunities to succeed, that it benefits society to prevent the people who really screw up from starving and living on the streets.

And to do that you need money, which means (at a minimum) taxes. And you also need regulations to protect workers from being exploited--which means no laissez-faire capitalism.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html

a quotation I may have learned about first here on HN:

"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."

Ayn Rand firmly believed that philosophy shapes human action. I agree with that and frequently quote her on this one: "The present state of the world is not the proof of philosophy’s impotence, but the proof of philosophy’s power. It is philosophy that has brought men to this state – it is only philosophy that can lead them out."

> Laws don’t exist merely to frustrate the business ambitions of coastal hipsters: They also exist to protect the more vulnerable members of society

No. They exist to skew the odds in favour of those who are already "in the business", or to line up the pockets of the friends or financial backers of those that make the laws.

(EDIT: some of them also exist to get reelected, and very few of them for what laws are really needed for - protecting private property)

The market is the only thing that can beat some sense to a politician - but only after he's used your tax money to fight back, and until after reality can not be denied any longer.

Take any eco 101 book to learn how the NYC medallion scheme is damaging and learn for yourself. Here's a good read which requires little domain knowledge:

http://www.worthpublishers.com/Catalog/uploadedFiles/Content...

(EDIT2: Downvote as much as you want. An article with that much politic biais deserves IMHO at least a matching response.)

Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell

Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury

The Game - Neil Strauss

The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

Four Steps to the Epiphany - Steve Blank

Business @ The Speed of Thought - Bill Gates

The Art of the Start - Guy Kawasaki

Psychology has always played in multiple ponds. Expirement based social science. Explicitly unscientific^ theory (eg Freud). Quite a lot in the practice/medical aspects. A lot of philosophical approaches.

Overall, I think this has added up to a result where when people in the field say "we know X to be true," it's hard to know what they mean, nevermind if they're correct. Do they mean it in the sense that a literary critic means something, or the way a chemist means something.

For example: Atlas Shrugged & Animal Farm are both works of fiction and of political "science". This is fine in the frame of what political science is, a non scientific field. No one since Marx has really claimed otherwise.

When Marx claimed his theories to be scientific, the discussion that followed actually resulted in very important pieces of modern epistemology: what is science. The critics of Marx were also critics of Freud and the criticism was identical.

Psychology though.. it has remained in a sort of no man's land. I know that I at least have really lost confidence in psychology, as an academic field. Practice/therapy is a completely different story. I think there's been a lot of advancement in therapy. I can't help but wonder though, how much it is hindered by bogus "science."

^in the Karl Popper sense

Not sure where you got that. All of my posts on this topic should make clear that I'm a very big Rand fan, and have read all of her books (really, all of them). I would never call myself a SOME-PERSONS-NAMEian of any sort, so perhaps that's the difference. I do sometimes refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist, so, philosophically, your Rothbardian views and mine probably coincide more than they differ. ;-)

I actually did enjoy Atlas Shrugged. But the speech is too much, the book too long (by about half), and the characters are weak (for such a long book). When I first started reading Rand, I wanted to share her books with everybody. So I recommended Atlas, her opus, to everybody I knew. None of them made it through the book. All got bogged down in the speech, and either gave up, or skimmed the rest of it. Even people who were reasonably heavy readers (though mostly pulp) still couldn't stomach the whole thing. I started recommending Anthem after that, and everybody made it through...everybody enjoyed it...and some went on to read other Rand books (I recommend The Fountainhead next).

I still believe that intelligent people can get everything they really need to know about Rand's philosophy from Anthem. And, of course, dumb folks can actually read Anthem, understand it, and enjoy it.

But, you're definitely weird to think "Catcher in the Rye" is shallow. Perhaps you like a lot of words in your stories. I don't. Word of advice: Stay away from Hemingway, you won't like it.

It is a safe bet that any book of 1957 still remembered (definitely Atlas Shrugged and On the Road, believe it or not The Anatomy of Criticism, probably not some of the others) has long since paid back the publisher's investment beyond expectations.

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

Swarm Intelligence - James Kennedy & Russel C. Eberhart

How The Mind Works - Steven Pinker

A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell

Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert

Here are two questions that serve to show the level of depth that you're not seeing in the book (but very much exists):

"What is Lillian's view of sex? Why does it torture Hank? Is he right or wrong to accept that torture?"

"How has Hank Rearden's attitude toward and treatment of his family changed? How -- and why -- has it remained the same?"

If you can't see it in a fiction book, perhaps Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics" might help you to understand the nuance of Rand's moral philosophy. (Tara Smith is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.)

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand...

I'm a having a little trouble believing the author actually read Atlas Shrugged - in it, one of the productive characters (Ragnar, if I remember right) explicitly lists many legitimate functions of government. One of them is maintaining public roads.

The author also deliberately fails to acknowledge the difference between public goods (blizzard cleanup) and private goods (medicine and financial services).

I was thinking about leaving it off because it is really, really bad for anyone who actually reads Sci-Fi. I put it on the list because despite the fact that it's almost completely unreadable because the Wal*Mart set needs their Sci-Fi too. I wanted the list to cover as broad a spectrum of sci-fi as I could without making it 100 items long.

I left off a lot of greats including:

Vernor Vinge Dan Simmons Arthur C Clarke Iain M. Banks

and other works by Stross and a few others

Why is Rand on this list? Well, besides the Bible (go figure) Atlas Shrugged is apparently the most influential book ever written. Do I agree with the whole Objectivist shtick? Not hardly but it is still worth mentioning.

The Giver? Like Anthem it's Sci-Fi for grade schoolers, worth mentioning because a lot of people were introduced to Sci-Fi with books like this.

Leave suggestions, as many as you want. If you don't see it on the list it probably would have been there if I had remembered it while I was compiling.

I read this after listening to the following lecture: http://arc-tv.com/inspiring-heroes-great-leaders%E2%80%94fre.... His strength of character allowed him to escape slavery and abolish the practice in the United States.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0452011876/

Don't buy the mass-market paperback, the writing and margins are so small that it is a pain to read. Spend a little extra for the larger version I linked to.

The three books I'm currently reading;
flex and bison,
Mastering Algorithms in C
Expert C programming,

The next three books on the "to read" stack are;
Cyptonomicom,
The definitive guide to GCC,
Managing projects with GNU make,

Did anyone else find "Code Complete" to be a bit repetitive, in places a bit redundant, and sometimes repetitive?
I think the "pragmatic programmer" was a better read, and I could not put down "programming pearls"

I've read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged too, but it was a while ago.