Atlas Shrugged

What if we view from a different position?

Delayed_flight — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:26:12 GMT

The main heroes of AS are honest businessmen who obtain wealth via legal means, i.e. they don't cheat on government. But how can Ayn Rand's philosophy be applied if government deals with businessmen who steal from their government by evading taxes, for example?

The Calendar

ste53 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:44:04 GMT

I am trying to figure out what is the meaning of the calendar in Atlas Shrugged. Can anyone help me?
Thanks,
ste53

Is citing obligatory when writing an essay?

Delayed_flight — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:18:17 GMT

I find t somehow difficult to look through the whole book in order to find a necessary quote. IS it really obligatory to quote heroes and cite the page numbers?

TRIVIA: Where Rearden Metal should have been “Miracle Metal” (?)

Dominique — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:58:51 GMT

I spotted this one in Part. III – Chapter II, when the Project X (aka Xylophone, aka Thompson Harmonizer) is put into demonstration before Docteur Robert Stadler during an official presentation to a public of VIP's. At some point, the radio speaker makes mention of the Rearden Metal though it should have been renamed Miracle Metal considering who organized this event and who attended it, and since the Rearden Metal had been officially renamed “Miracle Metal” long before in the Part. II Chapter VI – MIRACLE METAL , when the doctor Ferris forced Hank Rearden into signing the Gift Certificate through blackmail.

Did Ayn Rand miss this one, or did she decide to hold the name "Rearden Metal" even though it was unlikely to be named thus way in this context in particular ?

See:

Excerpt: Part. II - Chapter VI - MIRACLE METAL

“ The piece of paper, which he placed in front of Rearden, looked like a small college diploma, with the text printed in old-fashioned script and the particulars inserted by typewriter. The thing stated that he, Henry Rearden, hereby transferred to the nation all rights to the metal alloy now known as "Rearden Metal," which would henceforth be manufactured by all who so desired, and which would bear the name of "Miracle Metal," chosen by the representatives of the people.”

Excerpt: Part. III – Chapter III – ANTI-GREED

". . . The sound ray is invisible, inaudible and fully controllable in respect to target, direction and range. Its first public test, which you are about to witness, has been set to cover a small sector, a mere two miles, in perfect safety, with all space cleared for twenty miles beyond. The present generating equipment in our laboratory is capable of producing rays to cover through the outlets which you may observe under the dome the entire countryside within a radius of a hundred miles, a circle with a periphery extending from the shore of the Mississippi, roughly from the bridge of the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad, to Des Moines and Fort Dodge, Iowa, to Austin, Minnesota, to Woodman, Wisconsin, to Rock Island, Illinois. This is only a modest beginning. We possess the technical knowledge to build generators with a range of two and three hundred miles but due to the fact that we were unable to obtain in time a sufficient quantity of a highly heat resistant metal, such as Rearden Metal, we had to be satisfied with our present equipment and radius of control. In honor of our great executive, Mr. Thompson, under whose far-sighted administration the State Science Institute was granted the funds without which Project X would not have been possible, this great invention will henceforth be known as the Thompson Harmonizer!"

Question about love in Atlas Shrugged

raghavr — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:44:16 GMT

I've always loved Atlas Shrugged.. it's helped me understand a lot of things about the world as it is, and helped me in some part to form my own philosophy and consequently, make the best of my life.
and while I'm quite clear about philosophical precepts of the novel, I have a question to do with the emotional compass of the characters..

The one thing I did not understand or fully fathom was the way Dagny moves from Francisco to Rearden and finally to Galt. I got why she was with Rearden - because at that time, Francisco was doing the whole playboy thing and Dagny was unaware of his true intentions.. She thought he had degenerated to something she couldn't even classify. I even got her going from Rearden to Galt because with Rearden it was more an admiration of the man he was than true love. But she did love Francisco; who was biding his time until he could tell her the truth and go back to her. In his heart, he had always loved her.. even through the 12 years of their being seperate.. how could he just give her up to Galt? (well, I guess because you can't force love); Therefore, the question is - how could she leave Francisco for Galt? If an emotion once granted can never be taken away (paraphrasing the fountainhead), shouldn't she still have loved him? Isn't he still the man he was, perhaps greater because of all he had done in the time in between? What if tomorrow, she finds another Galt? A Galt 1.1 perhaps.. more capable, intelligent, with greater courage of conviction and the same moral, ethical values -- would she go to him then?

What is permanent?

Atlas Shrugged as science fiction

xerxes — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:05:13 GMT

I define science fiction as any literature that depicts some kind of technology that is more advanced than what is available at the time the story was written. In light of that definition, consider the technologies depicted in AS. Based on the knowledge of nature our science has provided us are these things realistic or fanciful?

Reardon Metal?

Galt's atmosperic static engine?

The device that disintegrates everything in Galt's workshop?

The "mirage device" that hides the valley?

Robin Hood's Crime?

Guvmint Cheese — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:18:43 GMT

Hi, first, I want to say that I just stumbled on this forum, and I think it's very informative. I'm on my fifth read of Atlas, and I just came upon Ragnar's "Robin Hood" speech. I have tried to come to terms with it, but I'm at a loss.

The crime that Robin Hood has committed is that he "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor." The question I have is whether that's a fair assessment of his activities. Robin Hood takes place circa 1200 in feudal England, a country run by lords and barons (which I read as "the government") who received their lands not by the fruits of their labor but by the spoils of war. The feudal system was effectively thrust upon many of England's inhabitants of the time, reducing many to indentured servitude. These lords and barons had earned their living through either the labors of their servants or the taxation of their earnings from said labor. No production, per se, is done by these governing lords or barons.

While I can't really put the common uneducated 12th Century peasant in the same boat as a Rearden, Hammond, Stockton, or Galt, I have to notice that all of them actually produced, and the villains in both stories, be it governing lords or barons of a feudal England or a Wesley Mouch of the national government, did not produce.

Robin Hood, from where I can see it, took from the non-producers and gave back to the indentured producers - somewhat similar to Ragnar D.

Was Ms. Rand perhaps too wrapped up in the "rob from the rich and give to the poor" concept promoted in Robin Hood to truly appreciate the state of affairs in feudal England, or is there something I am completely missing in regards to the situation.

Your insight would be greatly appreciated.

Guvmint Cheese

Reading Group Discussion Questions

cdreed — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:52:57 GMT

I would like to start a reading group/book club to discuss Atlas Shrugged. I'm about to read it for the first time myself and want to be able to discuss the concepts with others as I read. I've found a few lists of discussion questions online, but it seems to be the same 8-10 questions. I'd like to be able to meet every few chapters and would love to find a discussion guide broken down that way.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Angelina is no Dagny

Assandra — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:10:46 GMT

Yep, I said it and I don't know why nobody else did, unless my eyes stopped working for a moment when I checked this forum out. Ayn Rand is my role model, Dagny is a high ideal, Angelina is small in comparison. Quite small, tiny, itsy bitsy teensy weensy. She butchered the part of Lara Croft, and now she's at it again. But no, it isn't entirely her fault. Hollywood loves to give great characters to mediocre and talentless actors, it's a trend. Personally, if I could be so, I'd be offended, but it's nothing that hasn't happened before. It just sickens me that people who call themselves 'objectivists' support the deal.

Peace,

Assandra

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

nick0011 — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:32:51 GMT

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Getty Images

The art for a 1999 postage stamp.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

--------------------------------

nick

--------------------------------

New York Drug Treatment Centers-New York Drug Treatment Centers

Galt's Gulch

Tampico — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:50:51 GMT

29.34, -91.067

new to the school

Lew — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:15:58 GMT

I just finished Atlas Shrugged. Second exposure to these ideas after The Fountainhead. Enjoyed both very much.

I'm wondering where the school of thought has gone since then. There must be a variety of strands. Can anyone provide some objective perspective or overview? Is Libertarianism the only formal institution associated with it, and is that association explicitly acknowledged?

I need help on this essay topic!

bperry — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:10:43 GMT

My english class just finished reading Atlas Shrugged. I really enjoyed the book but I need some ideas of this essay question.

The question: Is the current economic and political systems in the United States more like John Galt's or the looter's ideals?

I need some examples from the book and from current situations in the the U.S. to help get me started. Thanks for all your help.

tell me if I have point

mpunz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:23:38 GMT

Where I disagree with Ayn Rand:

- The world won't function with the impracticality of the system that she wishes to construct. Not everyone is going to abide by her philosophy, and her government can only thrive where everyone's in on it.

Rand applauds industrialists and also commends self-reliance. In Atlas Shrugged, she mentions how the U.S. is plausible because it gives everyone of every stature a chance to succeed. Despite that, she is strongly against welfare and taxing. Without those two factors it would be impossible to have a public education or healthcare. Both of which are factors of success. If a child is born in poverty, how can he possibly go a different direction without free schooling or without his health taken care of?

The fact of the matter is - people have opinions that vary. This is individuality, which is the whole premise of Rand's philosophy.

- Art shouldn't be analyzed. It's art - it should only matter to its creator.

I agree with her thoughts on:

- It would be much simpler to abide by the philosophy that A is A. We live in a world that over analyzes and ignores reality. Why can't we just realize that it is what is? To live life in worry rather than to accept happiness and cherish it, would be a recipe for self-destruction.

- Common sense would tell us that working for our own happiness is the way to go. Religion has taught us otherwise. This became labelled as selfishness and has been forever embedded onto countless minds. It's never a good idea to base decisions on fear rather than logic.

Galt's Gulch

Abe Lincoln — Tue, 22 May 2007 17:45:16 GMT

I think Ms. Rand made a grave error in not following her own "advice". She states clearly in Atlas Shrugged that the men of mind were on strike, but she acted like Dagny (the scab), in trying to influence people's political notions. Even the great Lao Tzu and Confucius found such an exercise to be futile and withdrew from the world. She burnt herself out and finally gave up (in disgust?) all of her writing in the last years of her life. It's a shame that she was so nearsighted with herself while farsighted with the world.