We’re Living in ‘Atlas Shrugged’

[ericire12]

http://washingtonindependent.com/32415/congressman-were-living-in-atlas-shrugged

Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), who gives his departing interns copies of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” told me today that the response to President Obama’s economic policies reminded him of what happened in the 51-year-old novel.

“People are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’” said Campbell. “The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit rest of us, are going on strike. I’m seeing, at a small level, a kind of protest from the people who create jobs, the people who create wealth, who are pulling back from their ambitions because they see how they’ll be punished for them.”

In Rand’s novel, creative people (the “Atlases” of the title) are hounded and punished for their labor by an oppressive, socialistic state. In response, they retreat from society to a hidden enclave where they watch civilization’s slow collapse.

How far, I asked Campbell, are we from the final chapters of the novel? “We’re still a ways away,” he said. “That will happen when people expect that there ought to be a recovery going on, and it isn’t going on.”

[tombogan03884]

I'll have to read that.

[storm1911]

Who is John Galt?   

[tombogan03884]

Who is John Galt?   

Name rings a bell, is he the "hero"/main protagonist ?

[Trevor]

According to information from the Ayn Rand Institute, _Atlas Shrugged_ sold 200,000 copies in 2008.  So far, in 2009, sales are ahead of what they were at this time last year.  The novel was published in 1957 and has been a bestseller since that time.  The recent increase in sales is due, I suspect, to Internet discussion of the possibility of Rand's dystopia for capitalists is comng true with the new Administration.  The new President and his people are sounding a lot like Rand's malefactors when they talk about raising taxes only on the top income earners and expanding greatly the role of government in our lives.  Readers of Rand are wise to this trick and see it for the destruction of prosperity that it is. 

Yet, it is one thing to see Rand's point of view and another thing to follow it.  Conservatives may like her ideas about separating government and economics, but they are put off by her militant atheism and defense of a woman's right to seek a safe and legal abortion.  Her philosophy, which she boldly calls Objectivism, is no easy path to follow with its rigorous rejection of most of what passes for ideas from the left or the right in the past 200 years.  William F. Buckley said in the 1960s Objectivism was stillborn.  Here we are, 45 years later, and Rand continues to find an audience.  The question remains though: Can you rise to the challenge that Rand offers?  To understand this challenge without enduring the 1129 pages of _Atlas Shrugged_ (including John Galt's legendary 60 page speech), read a little book called _The Virtue of Selfishness_, which nicely encapsulates Rand's philosophy.  If you like what you see, you then can tackle _Atlas Shrugged_ and join the converted.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

 The Virtue of selfishness,  Who is the author ?

[metamurph]

Yet, it is one thing to see Rand's point of view and another thing to follow it.  Conservatives may like her ideas about separating government and economics, but they are put off by her militant atheism and defense of a woman's right to seek a safe and legal abortion.  Her philosophy, which she boldly calls Objectivism, is no easy path to follow with its rigorous rejection of most of what passes for ideas from the left or the right in the past 200 years.  William F. Buckley said in the 1960s Objectivism was stillborn.  Here we are, 45 years later, and Rand continues to find an audience.  The question remains though: Can you rise to the challenge that Rand offers?  To understand this challenge without enduring the 1129 pages of _Atlas Shrugged_ (including John Galt's legendary 60 page speech), read a little book called _The Virtue of Selfishness_, which nicely encapsulates Rand's philosophy.  If you like what you see, you then can tackle _Atlas Shrugged_ and join the converted.

I have been having a conversation about this in another format (Facebook) with the founder of The Free Capitalist Project http://www.freecapitalist.com in particular about atheism.  I am pasting some of this discussion below. First the general atheist part (this is with another person from FCP:

Good Question. Easy Answer. I am glad that you are familiar with Ayn Rand and have read some of her material. She is certainly one of my own heroes!

In your question you are referencing the FreeCapitalist Pledge which includes the statement, “We who are not about to die, we who love our lives, and who freely choose to acknowledge that “God governs in the affairs of men’, stand forth and individually pledge… ”

Ayn Rand understood and articulated freedom and liberty in a way that I’d never comprehended myself. However, she bases her definition of "faith" upon what she calls the "witch-doctors", religionists who manipulate and deceive their followers through tools such as unearned guilt and collective ignorance, thus destroying an individual’s free and creative mind; becoming followers who are blindly led by someone without the propensity to check their own premise and choose for themselves. This is obviously against everything she believes, and I of course agree. (Sidenote: One of my favorite books that illustrate this is in her book, "For the New Intellectual" Excellent read!)

Ayn Rand claimed to be an atheist, but in an interview on the Phil Donahue Show in the early 80”s she said, “My husband was more of an atheist than I am.” Interesting claim. (You can find this on YouTube. Awesome interview!) In her books she is found to quote the Founders and believes them to be “men of reason”, yet they believed in a God, or Creator. She is found to reference God several times in her teachings. I personally do not believe that Ayn Rand was an atheist, perhaps more of an agnostic. I believe she hadn’t found a “religion” that taught reason above mysticism. If she understood that “God” is really exalted man, perhaps she might have been more willing to consider religion and faith. (Especially if she had read Joseph Smiths definition of Faith in his writings, The Lectures of Faith. No mysticism there!)

The sentence "God governs in the affairs of man" is based upon a statement made by Benjamin Franklin. (A Founding Father whom Ayn Rand considered “reasonable”) He said, "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787

The FreeCapitalist Project is designed for individuals who believe in and love God. However, there are many people in the world who love freedom and liberty who have chosen to define God as “the Universe”, “Nature”’, “the Creator”, “Inner-Conscience,” etc… The principles still apply.

then Rick Korber got tagged into the discussion in response to my follow-up questions, his comments are the *** parts.

Thomas Murphy Response:

I think this is a fair point but I believe that unless you start with a foundation based on a Faith in God that it is too easy to step into laws must only be in place which are scientifically based

*** I agree, but suggest that not everyone means what they say when they make this statement. God is a being who supports and upholds absolute laws. It is not just faith in God but faith that he upholds laws - or in other words, in his character and attributes that is our beginning point.

and thus why can't two men be married, it is just a "legal contract afterall".

***Your point is well taken. However, in a broader context the issue is much more poignant. You will not find in the US Constitution a single mention of families or family contracts - such as marriage. Yet, God says he established this as being for all men—and that whatever is more or less of it is evil. Now, I'm not suggesting we can never modify the constitution but what principle is it that gives government (the delegated use of force) the right to interfere with private contracts. You see, it is politically easy to discuss "gay marriage" as you do - but to look at the issue substantively is a much greater work. For example, the first question is not "should people of the same sex be allowed to marry" but first and foremost what is marriage? In our society this term has become redefined. Marriage, scripturally, does not get its authority from the government. Why our government is involved in marriage, in any way is a mystery to me. It has traditionally been wrong - over and over again in its attempt to regulate the form of men's relations. It is true, in God's law, that marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore true that a government who uses force to break God's law (such as granting sanction to same sex marriage) is immoral and wrong. However, what is even more clear as a matter of principle is that it is not within the scope of the proper role of government to sanction any private relationships.

A great talk is the New BYU Speeches podcast from 11/2/08 "On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government" by Robert P. George.

***Okay, good let's find it.

The challenge is that we are all inside a big university, trying to find our way and the world itself is fallen.

***No, this is not the problem as I see it. The problem is that we are placed here with our moral agency and we are tempted by good and evil and Lucifer who advocates for evil is the "father of all lies." The greatest mortal threat is deception. The greatest precursor to deception is abandoning one's God given ability to think, and to discern.

Thus bad things happen to good people and we will continue to be tried.

***Bad things happen to good people for two reasons. First, our perspective on "what is bad" is usually inaccurate. Difficult and "bad" are not the same thing. Secondly, God respects men's agency. When someone breaks the law, the consequences are often felt by more than the one who broke the law. Similarly, when patriots, who are also Saints, make the mistake of abandoning their minds - thinking that Satan's lies are correct, that FAITH and REASON are mutually exclusive - much evil is done in the name of good by "sleeping virgins."

When you mix together religion and a rationalist often they will come to be at odds with each other

***This is irrelevant. Men of faith often disagree with each other. Men without faith disagree with each other. It is a false dichotomy to put faith on one side of the equation and reason on the other. The Lord says, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Notice by divine announcement we are certain our minds can know the truth. He also says, I am the way, the truth and the life. Notice that Jesus doesn't say I am "a" way, or "a" truth - to be the ONE truth implies that we will have to discern between CHRIST and ANTI-CHRIST and the Lord expects us to be discerning/reasoning - with faith.

mixing the statements of Rand in general kind of a I can't believe what I can't a) see and b) prove can lead to (while diametrically opposed in government philosophy) the Marx statement of "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

***But religion is the opiate of the masses. The majority did not follow Christ yet they claimed to be religious. The majority of the Church will not inherit the Celestial glory - even 1/2 of the virgins are not prepared - yet all claim to be religious. The opiate - is a synonym for being asleep - religion is the masses excuse for being asleep. While I am certainly no Marx fan, the statement is correct. It is worthwhile, btw - to research where he likely came across that statement first, which he is now so famous for having repeated. The religious world is generally at war with man's mind but the Prophet taught that, "Thy mind, O man! If thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity --thou must commune with God." The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth.

The reference talk is here http://ldsfiles.com/newforums/ldsfiles-com-talk-repository/13321-byu-devotional-moral-purposes-law-government.html

[Dharmaeye]

A book defining today's events written in 1987.
The Ropespinner Conspiracy by Michael M. Thomas.

[Michael Bane]

Strangely enough, Ayn Rand gave me one of the most important pieces of advice I've ever been given, a piece of advice that quite literally changed my life. I was a hot-shot rock and roll journalist in New York City when one of my editors took a job at a weekly newspaper magazine in Texas. He hired me to interview "some old philosophy broad, Ann Rand" at a conference. I'd read ATLAS SHRUGGED, so I told him having me interview one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century was...a reach. "It's all rock and roll," the editor said. "Take the money."

So she's perched on a high stool, and I'm sitting on this low folding chair looking up. I ask my first question, and she says, "That's not good enough, young man. Try again." I'm sure she must have thought she was being interviewed by a hamster. She put up with me for a long time, then got off her stool and headed out the door. She took a couple of steps, stopped and came back.

"Young man," she said, "you have one thing to do with your life, and one thing only. See clearly. Just that...see clearly. Goodbye." And she walked away without another word.

Old story, but true. If I have a philosophy, it's all wrapped up in those two words — see clearly.

Michael B

[tombogan03884]

How many can even grasp that concept ? No one who voted for B Ho. Seems like most of the deepest thoughts in Philosophy are like that, very simple on the surface but with many layers of increasing complexity between "hearing" and "understanding".