Anyone here read Atlas Shrugged?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would definitely recommend that everyone read Atlas Shrugged at least once; or at least, read a lot of it.

When she gets on some of those long-winded rants where she repeats herself over and over with miniscule variations in analogy, especially the radio broadcast... forget it. Skim.

She says the same things over and over and over and over. Yeah, we get it, move on to your next point.
 


guerilla said:
There is no crisis of credit, so while it's a beautiful page, I didn't watch it yet because the title is fallacious.

There is a capital crisis. Credit is not capital.

Should I watch it, or is it a bunch of double think populist BS?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should watch it so you can actually make an informed judgement on your own, instead of blind speculation.
 
kblessinggr said:
Maybe you should watch it so you can actually make an informed judgement on your own, instead of blind speculation.
Click to expand...
The title is false though. That's why I asked. My time is precious, we all make decisions based on opportunity costs.

Just as I wouldn't watch a video about "Kill Jews and Niggers" I won't watch a video about economic mumbo-jumbo nonsense, then feel compelled to waste more time coming back here to do a point by point refutation.

There is no crisis of credit, so if it is in fact about what it is labelled, waste of everyone's time. If it is not, it's poor marketing, and I have chosen a different opportunity for my time. There is a lot of entropy, it is silly to expect people to invest time into everything or they are not being open minded.
 
So let me ask a serious question.

I assume some of you make enough to be in one of the top two tax brackets that are likely to go back to pre-Bush marginal rates.

If any of you truly believe what's going on now mirrors Atlas Shrugged, how many are sincerely planning to "go Galt"?

I'm genuinely curious. Does that 3-5% marginal increase really dis-incentivize you to scale back your efforts to increase your income? I mean, when Atlas Shrugged was published the top marginal income tax rate was over 90%. Obama's top proposed rate is 39.6%.

I'm not talking principle or philosophy. I'm just wondering how much of this recent rediscovery of Rand's work by a lot of the Right is honest or if it's just a convenient and amusing meme. (note: I realize she has not been "re"-discovered among libertarians)

Not dogging her work. Though I disagree with a lot of it and think she's an middling novelist, I still found it oddly compelling at the time. (only read the Fountainhead, didn't finish AS)
 
guerilla said:
The title is false though. That's why I asked. My time is precious, we all make decisions based on opportunity costs.

Just as I wouldn't watch a video about "Kill Jews and Niggers" I won't watch a video about economic mumbo-jumbo nonsense, then feel compelled to waste more time coming back here to do a point by point refutation.

There is no crisis of credit, so if it is in fact about what it is labelled, waste of everyone's time. If it is not, it's poor marketing, and I have chosen a different opportunity for my time. There is a lot of entropy, it is silly to expect people to invest time into everything or they are not being open minded.
Click to expand...

Titling the video "Credit Default Swaps Explained" would have been more appropriate. That's all it is. "This is what a credit default swap is, and they are the root of our current problems."
 
BrooklynBlue said:
I'm genuinely curious. Does that 3-5% marginal increase really dis-incentivize you to scale back your efforts to increase your income? I mean, when Atlas Shrugged was published the top marginal income tax rate was over 90%. Obama's top proposed rate is 39.6%.
Click to expand...
A lot of people have already gone Galt. They didn't wait until the election. They started moving in 2006.
 
Supergeek said:
I think philosophy is a fine thing, but bears little application to real life.
Click to expand...
Ethical nihilism is fine if that is your choice, but I think people usually make the comment you did, when they sometimes have principles, and other times compromise them if they are inconvenient.

Like, no one likes to pay taxes, but everyone loves a free government handout. We scream and cry if someone robs us, but if the government robs someone for us, we're happy to get a share of the loot.
 
guerilla said:
Ethical nihilism is fine if that is your choice, but I think people usually make the comment you did, when they sometimes have principles, and other times compromise them if they are inconvenient.

Like, no one likes to pay taxes, but everyone loves a free government handout. We scream and cry if someone robs us, but if the government robs someone for us, we're happy to get a share of the loot.
Click to expand...
The only way to change the system is to spend your life learning it and beating your head against its inertia. I choose to spend my time otherwise, and work within the system as well I can.

If you want a house, internet, a phone, a computer, health insurance, and the money to get those things, you have to live within some sort of modern society. If you disagree with modern society, you can go live in the bush somewhere and be your own man and self respect yourself right into life in the wilderness doing everything on your own, beholden to no man. Congratulations if you can do that. I'd rather not wipe my ass with leaves and watch my teeth fall out at 30 and dress my own deer and scratch at the lice and fleas that will eventually infest me.

Dealing with society means compromise.

I have principles when it comes to dealing with other people. I am empathetic to individuals.

Governments and corporations look at people as resources, not entities worthy of respect. Otherwise we wouldn't have indiscriminate wiretaps, no-bid contracts, monopolies, known unsafe products on the market, and a host of other afflictions.

I do not respect these large collectives (corporations, governments) because governments don't respect people; all they care about is profits, votes, reelections, market share, etc. I treat those collectives like forces of nature; they're there to be used or endured.
 
I wrote two responses but thought better of it.

The world doesn't change without the Lysander Spooners, Mahatma Gandhis, Martin Luther Kings, George Washingtons, Susan B. Anthonys. Not everyone is a hero. I know I am not. But people who think inside the system, who can't see beyond the persistence of the current norms, are not the ones who create change. Without those heroic, principled individualists, there would still be slavery and oppression. We would all be worse off for it. Society as a collective animal tends towards convention, not evolution (the word within revolution).

The "love it or leave it" society argument is based on a false premise. That the society, that a majority have superior rights to an individual. And that consent to the social contract is assumed to be implicit consent on birth.

Oh sure, that is reality. But if it isn't acceptable for 50 neighbors to vote to take your car and house under threat of violence, then it isn't acceptable when those 50 elect a city official to do it under color of law.

My 2 cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vinny lingo
BrooklynBlue said:
So let me ask a serious question.

I assume some of you make enough to be in one of the top two tax brackets that are likely to go back to pre-Bush marginal rates.

If any of you truly believe what's going on now mirrors Atlas Shrugged, how many are sincerely planning to "go Galt"?

I'm genuinely curious. Does that 3-5% marginal increase really dis-incentivize you to scale back your efforts to increase your income? I mean, when Atlas Shrugged was published the top marginal income tax rate was over 90%. Obama's top proposed rate is 39.6%.

I'm not talking principle or philosophy. I'm just wondering how much of this recent rediscovery of Rand's work by a lot of the Right is honest or if it's just a convenient and amusing meme. (note: I realize she has not been "re"-discovered among libertarians)

Not dogging her work. Though I disagree with a lot of it and think she's an middling novelist, I still found it oddly compelling at the time. (only read the Fountainhead, didn't finish AS)
Click to expand...

Hey Brooklyn, good question. First, I think that extends well beyond the 3-5% "marginal" increase...and labeling it as marginal is relatively subjective.

It's an offense to my core beliefs - I'm not even going to get into that, I'm sure you know enough about Libertarian ideology to guess at what that means.

In addition, the nationalization (albeit only partially, for now) of private enterprise is another big issue. The government gets a little bigger, and takes another step in control of our daily lives...sinking it's teeth deeper into free enterprise. Whether or not this is a "necessity" is up for debate as well.

Will I go Galt? Doubtful. Would I if the opportunity to do so was right? Absolutely. It has little to do with the 3-5% impact on my net income, and more to do with principles. I think this country is headed in the wrong direction and I would absolutely jump off the bus if given the opportunity. This probably comes off like I'm unpatriotic...the opposite is true. The ideals this country were built on are slowly being eroded and everyone seems to be too fucking myopic to notice.

My 2 cents.
 
guerilla said:
I wrote two responses but thought better of it.

The world doesn't change without the Lysander Spooners, Mahatma Gandhis, Martin Luther Kings, George Washingtons, Susan B. Anthonys. Not everyone is a hero. I know I am not. But people who think inside the system, who can't see beyond the persistence of the current norms, are not the ones who create change. Without those heroic, principled individualists, there would still be slavery and oppression. We would all be worse off for it. Society as a collective animal tends towards convention, not evolution (the word within revolution).

The "love it or leave it" society argument is based on a false premise. That the society, that a majority have superior rights to an individual. And that consent to the social contract is assumed to be implicit consent on birth.

Oh sure, that is reality. But if it isn't acceptable for 50 neighbors to vote to take your car and house under threat of violence, then it isn't acceptable when those 50 elect a city official to do it under color of law.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

+rep @ Lysander Spooner

Constitution Of No Authority FTW
 
  • Like
Reactions: guerilla
Ayn Rand has been one of the biggest influences in my life. She was waaay ahead of her time and nails it every time when it comes to governments intervening especially in the markets.

Reading Atlas Shrugged will show you where we are at now.
We The Living will show you where we end up if we continue down this path.

Anyone at all interested in the course this country is taking should read these two books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom