This post comes late (forgive me I’m traveling on vacation to Elkhart Lake, WI).
Although we still remain lite on comments, Matt Camp has been a great “fire starter” commenting on Part I-Iand Part I-II. Matt comments on how the book arrived via Amazon the same week I announced the Atlas Shrugged Ad Hock Book Club, and how it sealed the deal … the book found him. He also expressed how engaging the dialog was, especially as it gets to Dagny and James. For Part I-II he likes getting to know Rearden, but raises the issue of Work/Life balance and questioned if Rearden’s approach is admirable, “at what cost?”.
There are no comments for Part I-III THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM but I thought this cartoon below re: Lobbyists (didn’t mean to make too much about McCain, could have been any politician) was fitting. We learned that Rearden’s “Washington man” was Wesley Mouch and got a glance at how deals are being done at the time.
What we’ve read to date:
- Part I-I THE THEME (page 3 - 26)
- Part I-II THE CHAIN (page 27 - 43)
- Part I-III THE TOP AND BOTTOM (pages 44 - 63)
This week’s reading is roughly 20 pages depending on what edition you are reading, mine is page 64 to page 88.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Stella 08.03.10 at 9:31 pm
Hi Walter and all the others,
Today Amazon delivered my book, so I hoop I will catch up soon. I started today with the last pages, which explain her life and the essentials of objectivism. I always think it is nice to have some background and perspective. Although I disagree on some points (see below) I am looking forward to see how she tells her story and if she can convince me…
I am not a philosopher, so I might see things totally wrong, but I have some questions/comments regarding her objectivism. If someone can help me out, that would be great, but I might just have to be patient and start reading the book itself…
1. Human nature: Objectivism rejects any form of determinism. I interpret her statement that everybody starts in the same “place” and that upbringing, genes, and economic conditions do not have an impact on the course of people’s lives. I, on the contrary, do feel that they have an impact and that they cannot be ignored (but I do agree that they cannot be used as the only excuse).
2. Ethics: Objectivism states that man is an end in itself and not a means to the ends of others. Here, I do agree. However, I am intrigued by how this works out in daily practice (neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself). As I understood, the book favors capitalism, and I have the opinion that capitalism - as I know it -, exploits people sometime…
3. Ethics: That objectivism rejects any form of altruism can be explained easily. People who are altruistic are so because in the end they will feel better about themselves…
4. Politics: The basic social principle is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force. What about emotional force?
5. Politics: Capitalism stands for a government whose only function is to protect man from those who initiate the use of physical force. I am looking forward to her ideas of how a society should deal with people who are poor, unemployed, sick and so on.
Cheers, Stella
Walter R. Roth 08.17.10 at 11:40 pm
Welcome to the group Stella!
All great thoughts and questions. I think we are still early in the book to answer those fully … but I’m sure we’ll be revisiting those as time goes on.
The next chapter shows what true capitalism looks like, in my opinion … I love the dialog between Dagny and Rearden …
T. Clark 08.20.10 at 10:50 pm
Hi Stella,
Glad to see you picked up Atlas Shrugged. It’s a fantastic novel. As to your questions:
1) Humans are capable and must strive for rational thought for their own rational self-interests. Barring a mental retardation of some kind(i.e. bad genes) that disables the human mind, people are capable of this irregardless of upbringing or economic influences. However there are individuals who have chosen to exercise their rational thought to improve their condition and the condition of their offspring. Those who haven’t or choose not to, are what Rand refers to as the moochers.
2) Capitalism does not exploit individuals because individuals are able to freely associate and dissociate with one other.
3) People who are altruistic are actually self-sacrificing themselves for others which is not rational self-interest. This goes against the definition of man. You cannot be a man unless you have rational self-interest for your own preservation, not the preservation of others above your self (i.e. be your brother’s keeper). Only after you take care of your own needs, may you then give the extra to others if you so desire.
4) Not sure what you mean by “emotional force”. Any force to take something of value instead of earning it is to be prohibited.
5) The role of government is to provide a (judicial) system where grievances can be redressed as well. Under Rand’s system, you wouldn’t really have poor or unemployed, because individuals would be able to freely associate. There would be no minimum wage laws to contribute to the formation of poor and uneducated. There would only be poor and unemployed individuals if they actively chose to not participate in the capitalist system. As to the sick, more individuals would be able to afford the costs of health care, as well as an explosion in the innovative power of pharma/biotech because they would no longer need to spend large sums of money on the studies to prove the efficacy of their drugs (only on the safety…the FDA today regulates both safety AND efficacy, which drives up costs). Granted some folks might contract something incurable and their lifespan could be shortened, but they would still have a life to live in their own rational self-interests.
T. Clark 08.20.10 at 10:51 pm
*unemployed, not uneducated in #5
Greg Chadwick 08.22.10 at 7:07 pm
Hi All,
In response to Stellas #5:
“Politics: Capitalism stands for a government whose only function is to protect man from those who initiate the use of physical force. I am looking forward to her ideas of how a society should deal with people who are poor, unemployed, sick and so on.”
Having not read AS before, I am interested as well.
I would offer that it is everyones responsibility to take care of those in their communities who have fallen ill or on hard times. This can be accomplished individually, thru charitable organizations or thru communities of faith. Government intervention thru regulation/taxation in these matters have consequences both seen and unanticipated (see Clarks - minimum wage and FDA comments). In many cases, the intervention itself does more harm that good.
Cheers!