Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

People who hate Rand and Objectivism need not comment. Plenty of you already made reviews that complain more about Rand and how you hate her philosophy than discussing the book as is.

My question is for people open or neutral to the message, does this book serve that end more than Rand's essays?

I feel that her essays are tighter, more convincing, benefiting from the punch of formal logic. I'm not sure that the allegorical nature of this speculative story helps. Almost as if it would benefit from spending more time on deconstructing the horrors of authoritarian collectivism or the benefits of individual accomplishment.

It sort of takes a soft middle road. The oppressive state is not that vile and the hero is not that impressive, mostly because we get to see so little of them. I think this works in a visual format (like the famous Macintosh Ad where the heroine smashes the screen with her sledge hammer throw), as a book I want more.

Perhaps the teeth of this book are dulled by time and the utter collapse of the Soviet bloc and the pervasive soft socialism in the Western democracies. We don't have the forced homogeneity of Red China, we have instead the largess of bureaucracy and the welfare/military state.

The bloom is off the socialist utopia rose, so I'm not sure that a reader in 2013 is going to have the same gut reaction to the book as one from 1938. We've already lived through the millions of deaths authoritarian non-utopias caused, which we certainly didn't appreciate prior to WWII, and those horrors were much worse than what we see in Anthem.

It's a luke-warm condemnation instead of the full-throated horror show it could have been.

Personally I enjoy her stories (parables) more than her essay's or explanatory philosophical novels. While her writing style can make a reader snooze the message makes whatever endurance was required well spent.

My ability to see the migration downward-left combined with the styles of Rand, Asimov, Heinlein and others were instrumental in helping me craft my own novels. Frighteningly, like Rand's Atlas Shrugged, many of the things projected as speculative have come to fruition.

In light of the times, YES the allegory makes the message more relevant to Americans than ever.

I don't know, try talking about welfare and watch tempers flare especially if the person talking thinks recipients are getting over. Taxes are high by any measure and it irritates those that pay as compared to those that do not pay. It can be galling to work hard to only have the government say you are not giving enough.

Rand's magnum opus looks at what would happen if the creative class resigns and there is certainly an aura of romanticism to just chuck everything and go away to some fantasy place. The only problem with her work is that she never looks at the mid-level working people that serve the creative class. What to do with them if you get to keep all of your creation when you can't create without someone to bring it to life and maintain the life.

In her world, it is either create or consume on the backs of the creators. The world does not work this way. You want to build a railroad with your new steel, that is great, but how are you going to make the steel and lay track, let alone run the train all by yourself.

I loved her works and the philosophy for mental experiments. I enjoyed the books very much and some of the criticisms are correct about Atlas Shrugged about it being too long and bloated, but I still enjoyed it and think I am better for reading it.

Her books are allegory and the allegory are her books. Without each other, they do not exist. I do agree that her essays are much tighter writing, but her books reached the masses as her writing has not. I see her novels as parables intended to teach in a story form her philosophies. Classical parables were originally created to teach "lay" or "uneducated" people concepts in a way they could be understood. The heavy philosophical writings were left to the "educated" classes. The novels have stood the test of time and at least Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are classics and still widely published. You can ask readers about Atlas Shrugged and you will get a response of either they read the book, want to read the book, but at least have heard of the book. Ask the same readers who Ayn Rand is and about her philosophies and you will hear about the books and crickets about her philosophies.

I still think Rand's writing stands up well even today. I think some of her criticism of society can be seen in today's politically correct messages forced upon all. I do not think the bloom is off the rose so to speak, but is still worth a look.

Christopher, let me ask you a question. Ayn Rand went onto Medicare and Social Security after she developed cancer. Does Ayn Rand fail her own philosophies by consuming from the public coffers and not producing from her own hand? This is not a criticism about her doing so because she paid into the system and withdrew from the system when she needed it. She may not have publicly acknowledged it at the time, but I lay odds she probably slept better knowing there was a safety net to prevent her from going onto the street. Still, her philosophies do not lend to the idea of government payouts when you do not produce. Did her ideology fail when reality gave her cancer? This is not a criticism, once again, she paid in and was very sick when she died and needed the help. I am curios to your opinion on this question.

Papaphilly wrote: "I don't know, try talking about welfare and watch tempers flare especially if the person talking thinks recipients are getting over. Taxes are high by any measure and it irritates those that pay a..."

Consuming from the public coffers?

I think you correctly stated that she extracted the money that was taken from her without her consent. The only way her action would take from her philosophy would be if she extracted more than she put in? This begs the question of how much money the government stole from her and how much was taken back.

Rand's argument for self interest comes across as cold selfishness in her essays, whereas in her fiction its true nature revealed itself: the unique self worth of each individual and their natural right to be free from the imposition of collectivism by coercion.

I thoroughly enjoyed all her fiction, and Atlas Shrugged is still in my top ten (at least) favorite books.

Allan J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I don't know, try talking about welfare and watch tempers flare especially if the person talking thinks recipients are getting over. Taxes are high by any measure and it irritat..."

Actually the money was taken with her consent. She probably did not like paying taxes any more than you and I do, but she paid them non-the-less. I believe that Ayn Rand naturalized in 1931. Part of the process is that you agree to abide by the laws of the United States and some of those laws include taxation. She may not have liked it very much and maybe even complained bitterly, but she consented. The money was never stolen. She paid her due, just like every other good American.

To answer your other question, Rand went on Medicare and Social Security in 1974 at about 69. At this time she would have been eligible from 43 years of payments into the system for Social Security. I use this figure as from 1931 when she Naturalized to 1974 when she started drawing benefits. At that time, drawing benefits was about 13 years from retirement of 65 and the average life expectancy of 78 years for a Female in 1982. Rand died at 77 and drew 5 years less than the average female due to her early demise and late drawing of benefits. Rand also paid in less than the average worker because she started paying at 26 and not 22 which is the average age the Government uses. So she withdrew less than she paid in by 1 year. Sounds like a wash to me unless you want to consider that at that time at least most recipients living the average age were paid back more than they paid into the system. Rand probably broke even or made a bit of extra money.

Now as for Medicare. She would have made more than she paid in for this one reason alone. Medicare only started n 1966 and Rand didn't pay any more than 8 years because she started withdrawing in 1974 and withdrew for 8 years. On top of that she was undergoing cancer treatments, which would have cost much more than she paid in. On this one, she received more than she put in.

This is not a gotcha or me nay saying. I have no judgement here because being sick with bills due is not an easy life and she paid into the system. Philosophy is easy, but reality is hard. As Mike Tyson said "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face". Getting cancer is definitely a punch in the face.

Now, once again, did Ayn Rand fail her own philosophy?

Papaphilly wrote: "Allan J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I don't know, try talking about welfare and watch tempers flare especially if the person talking thinks recipients are getting over. Taxes are high by any measu..."

Actually her complaint was with the government coercing people into giving up their property.

Her receiving benefits from a system into which she had paid would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, it would be foolish not to take your money back. As for getting more than she paid in, I suspect that is a calculation most people never make.

Again - her philosophy was that moral actions were those which encouraged Man's rationality. Seizing the fruits of his actions would be considered immoral by this reasoning. Just saying she was anti-government is not only simplistic, it is wrong.

Papaphilly wrote: "Allan J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I don't know, try talking about welfare and watch tempers flare especially if the person talking thinks recipients are getting over. Taxes are high by any measu..."

Again, no. She was taking back a portion of what was taken from her...lawful theft (mandated taxation) is theft just the same.

How about the portion that she received that she didn't put in? At least try and be intellectually honest and answer the question that you are so trying to avoid.

Papaphilly wrote: "How about the portion that she received that she didn't put in? At least try and be intellectually honest and answer the question that you are so trying to avoid."
I agree IF she received more than she contributed then I would say it tainted her fidelity to HER OWN philosophy. However, as you stated, she made a lot of money and was taxed on that money for many years. Considering her age, how much she put in, the relative short time she drew from it, and the cost for services at that time the odds are against her extracting more than she put in (aka stealing money that someone else contributed for her own use).

I have not been intellectually dishonest in the least.

Allan J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "How about the portion that she received that she didn't put in? At least try and be intellectually honest and answer the question that you are so trying to avoid."
I agree IF sh..."

Answer the question I asked and quit avoiding it.

I have answered to full satisfaction,

If you insist on pushing, the answer is definitively NO she did not violate her principals by reclaiming what she put in.

“Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .�

� Ayn Rand, from The Objectivist, June 1966, 11 (Via the Ayn Rand Lexicon).

Happy?

I love people like you that cannot accept what she did. She went on the dole at the end of her life because she was sick. She took MORE from the system than she paid in and you justify it. She took MORE than she paid in. It sets up a paradox to say the least. Once again, there is no judgement from me because that is how the system works. Ayn Rand was ill and the system took care of her until her death. You want to justify it that she took back what was taken from her, fine, except she took MORE than she gave and that means someone else did not get theirs back. That is a failure to follow the philosophy except, her philosophy was based on a utopian Capitalistic system that does not now nor has ever existed. That is why it is called philosophy and not reality.

You want to call taxes legal robbery, fine, but it does not make you right. It only makes you sound like a zealot and that is OK too because you have the right to your opinion. From the very beginning of our nation there has been a tax system to pay for the needs of the country. Even our income tax is in the constitution (16th Amendment) and that had to be voted in by the People of the United States. That means in very plain language that the voters understood the need for the tax whether we like or not. Ayn Rand emigrated to the United States and Naturalized. She accepted and consented to the rules of the land. She had every right not to come here and either remain in Russia or live somewhere else. She chose the United States and its taxes. She did not have her rights voted away or robbed. Rand did not have those rights until she naturalized. She consented and there is no denying that and that by the very definition is not robbery. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy was based on a thought experiment and she was the first to acknowledge that a true system did not exist. She was always very careful to note that fact and until it existed, her society could not happen. She held it up as a utopian idea. Most of her scorn for the welfare state was aimed at Russian collectivism and the kleptocracy that arose from it. It was the idea that the group could tell you what you could do with your life and not let you make your decisions that drove her to distraction.

Ayn Rand was an iconoclast and brilliant, but she was not perfect or a demigod that some have tried to portray her. She was human and made frail human choices including taking government money.

I leave you with a challenge to read a novel critical of Objectivism. Beverly Garside wrote I and You and it is critical of Objectivism and it is very well written. I am not saying you have to like it or believe what it says, but just read it.

You ask at the beginning of this thread whether her analogies hold up better than her essays. The fact there is a novel critical of her philosophies answers your question.

Papaphilly wrote: "I love people like you that cannot accept what she did. She went on the dole at the end of her life because she was sick. She took MORE from the system than she paid in and you justify it. She t..."

So you lied. You asked for opinions and I gave you mine, even conditionally agreeing with your view. But that wasn't enough was it?

Your opinion, like mine, is solely personal to you and equally as right and as wrong as anything I say.

I am a Conservative, not an Objectivist. I respect the philosophy immensely and see it a badly needed chicken soup for America's sickly soul.

I did not start this thread. What I said was that I preferred her stories to her essays. Like you I only added my voice to an existing thread. The fact there is a novel critical of her philosophy only showcases free press and the free expression of ideas. I can assure you there is a book or paper somewhere that suggests that oxygen is unhealthy and bad for humans and we should be sniffing farts instead. I'd wager that that argument is logical and well reasoned by its author even if its absurd to others.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll hunt it down and read it.

In closing please consider "(federal income tax) was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system."


Taxes were once voluntary, then instituted temporarily and then slipped through as law in spite of the Constitution. Life and infrastructure (including sewers, street lights, and public libraries) did exist somehow prior to 1913. The federal income tax is legal theft as is the social security ponzi scheme, Medicare, Medicaid and especially O-care.

I didn't lie to you and you didn't conditionally agree with me. I asked you for an opinion and you returned with a dismissively flippant answer. You certainly did not answer the question I asked. You tried to reword the question I asked into something you wanted to answer and I would not let it happen.

Yes I pressed you and yet you still judiciously avoid my question. By trying to dodge the question, you provided an answer non-the-less. You can't defend against the question, so you avoid and try to change the question. Not what I call intellectual honesty.

You are right about your opinion, and you have the right to be wrong too.

As far as objectivism, it is a philosophy with its strengths and weaknesses, just as all philosophies have. there is plenty to like as well plenty to criticize.

Taxes have never been voluntary. I suggest you reread your American history and start with the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

Taxes pay for plenty. If you have ever ridden on public transit, you have taken more than you give. If you have ever attended, your children or your parents attended public school, then you have taken more than you give. If you have ever ridden in your car on the national highway network, then you take more than you give. Used a public library, or how about this one, the internet. All paid with public tax dollars.

I will leave you with this. You claim conservatism. OK, then I assume that you are a strict structuralist on Constitutional matters. The taxation issue is in the text of the Constitution as this is:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.�

Calling income taxes legal robbery is your opinion, but it doesn't make you right any more than avoiding a question you rather not answer.

Papaphilly wrote: "I didn't lie to you and you didn't conditionally agree with me. I asked you for an opinion and you returned with a dismissively flippant answer. You certainly did not answer the question I asked...."

Your reading of the Constitution re taxes leaves out :

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

As understood this would not allow for an Income tax because it is not applied proportionally to a State's population but rather is a function of an individual's income and that is why the 16th Amendment was necessary.

It's far from clear that Income Taxes were intended by the Founders.

I agree with your comment, except that I was using the quote above as a reference to taxation as part of the formation of our nation, not to prove the income tax. I noted the 16th Amendment in an earlier post as the income tax law.

The 16th Amendment was added as a way to make income taxation Constitutionally legal. It was added and taken out of law more than once and President Taft pushed this law through to make the income tax pass muster. To do this it had to go through the process and finally have the American people vote on it. Not an easy chore! However, it was done and the rest is history.

If my previous post left you with the impression that I used the original text quote as the ruling for the income tax, then it is my mistake and please accept my apology.

Papaphilly wrote: "I agree with your comment, except that I was using the quote above as a reference to taxation as part of the formation of our nation, not to prove the income tax. I noted the 16th Amendment in an ..."

No problem. It's been an interesting exchange.

Jdcomments wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I agree with your comment, except that I was using the quote above as a reference to taxation as part of the formation of our nation, not to prove the income tax. I noted the 16..."

Interesting in the Chinese sense of the word.

Papaphilly wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I agree with your comment, except that I was using the quote above as a reference to taxation as part of the formation of our nation, not to prove the income t..."

I wouldn't say that- I didn't find it that bad.

Except I look like an idiot too. My father always told me never to argue with a fool because by the end of the argument, the gathered crowd won't know who is who; I fell into that trap.

I thought the original question posed was a good one, but it caught me off guard because I was surprised that any one would think her books are not relevant today. Her book deal with real American themes. Individualism vs. Collectivism, Iconoclasty vs. Group think, and the producer class vs. the welfare class.

I know her magnum opus is Atlas Shrugged, but I enjoyed The Fountainhead much more. I think it is the better written book and much tighter.

In many ways, I think Ayn Rand understand the American exceptionalism much better than many people today. I think she is modern version of de Tocqueville in that being an outsider, yet understanding us as few did.

Instead of writing this, what did I do, went down a rabbit hole.

Papaphilly wrote: "Except I look like an idiot too. My father always told me never to argue with a fool because by the end of the argument, the gathered crowd won't know who is who; I fell into that trap.

I thought..."

Dialogue always entails the need to respond to another- thus to some degree we lose control of our message. However, it is that very element of uncertainty which enriches the conversation.That is the nature of the dialectical process: the synthesis at the end will include things your original thesis would never have considered.

Having said that, it is also hard to know who a "fool" is until you engage in the process. And while you cannot "teach stupid" anything it doesn't mean even a conversation with someone like that cannot help enlighten you or others.

Many of Socrates conversations were with fools- and yet they still instruct.

Jdcomments wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Except I look like an idiot too. My father always told me never to argue with a fool because by the end of the argument, the gathered crowd won't know who is who; I fell into th..."

And Socrates paid for his cup of cold Hemlock. Sorry could not resist that one. :)

That being said, when the conversation starts with This begs the question of how much money the government stole from her and how much was taken back. " is a pretty good indication of a fool. The statement indicates a closed mind and that bespeaks to a fool too. I knew this and still waded in for battle.

The comment irritated me and the fact my comment was rephrased for another's purpose to avoid what I asked bothered me to no end. I have run across these "intellectuals" plenty of times in the past on various subjects. You ask a reasonable question, get a non-answer or evasive one and then you can't get them to admit they avoided the question to begin with and you still can't get an answer to the question you asked. It is like a Monty Python skit. I decided to pin him into a corner using facts and logic knowing he was going to do what is always done: accuse me of being something repulsive (in my case a liar) and then a declaration that the question was answered.

So instead of a conversation about the books philosophy as was intended, it spun out of control.

I wonder would Ayn Rand think the same as Karl Marx with his statement "God save me from the Marxists"