- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m not totally sure this book belongs here. But BCC did a post on it, and Rand has a reputation for being anti-religious (while having a supposed cult ironically enough), and her philosophy is interesting from a Mormon perspective so I thought I would add my review here. I just finished the book. I’m particularly interested in what hawkgrrrl has to say about this book. Anyway, here’s my review:
Atlas Shrugged is one of the most popular books in America of all time. It has helped to shape much of our current political philosophy in our county and pushes back against the socialistic style of government seen in much of Europe.
Ayn Rand is a philosopher/author and lays out her philosophy Objectivism is much of her work. Atlas Shrugged is her “magnum opus” and most clearly demonstrates her ideas.
Here is a brief synopsis taken from Wikipedia [1].
As the novel opens, protagonist Dagny Taggart, executive of the railroad company Taggart Transcontinental, attempts to keep the company alive in difficult economic times marked by collectivism and statism. Dagny’s brother, James Taggart, the railroad’s President, seems peripherally aware of the company’s troubles but will not make any difficult choices, preferring to avoid responsibility for any actions. While this unfolds, Dagny is disappointed to discover that Francisco d’Anconia, her childhood friend, first love, and king of the copper industry, appears to have become a worthless playboy who is destroying his own business.
She meets Hank Rearden, a self-made steel magnate of great integrity, inventor of a metal alloy called Rearden metal, whose career is hindered by his feelings of obligation toward his wife, and whose business is in danger of coming under government control, and Dr. Robert Stadler, a physics professor who is a creator of the “State Science Institute,” intended to release science from the demands of its capitalist sponsors – delivering it instead into the control of bureaucrats and politics. Dagny also becomes acquainted with Wesley Mouch, a Washington lobbyist who leads the government’s efforts to control all commerce and enterprise, and Ellis Wyatt, founder of Wyatt Oil.
While economic conditions worsen, and government agencies gain increasing control over successful businesses, helpless people repeat the saying, “Who is John Galt?” meaning “Don’t ask important questions, because we don’t have answers.” Dagny learns that the nation’s innovators and business leaders are disappearing one by one under mysterious circumstances.
Dagny and Hank find the remnants of a motor that turns atmospheric static electricity into kinetic energy, along with evidence that the “Atlases” of the world, its “prime movers”, seem to be disappearing due to the actions of a figure she calls the “destroyer”. While searching for the motor’s creator, Hank and Dagny begin to experience the futility of their attempts to survive in a society that hates them and resents their motivation and their ability to create and achieve.
In the final section of the novel, Taggart discovers the truth about John Galt, who is leading an organized “strike” against those who use the force of law and moral guilt to confiscate the accomplishments of society’s productive members. With the collapse of the nation and its rapacious government all but certain, Galt emerges to reconstruct a society that will celebrate individual achievement and enlightened self-interest, delivering a long speech (seventy pages in the first edition) serving to explain the novel’s theme and Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, in the book’s longest single chapter.
Here are my thoughts and ideas. I found Atlas Shrugged to be a most prophetic look at the United States and our increasing propensity to become a welfare state in the name of altruism. Atlas Shrugged, in my opinion, should be required reading for all Americans as we struggle with the battles described in this book each day.
There are a few ways to interpret and evaluate this book. On a political level the book professes capitalism, acting in one’s self-interest, competition, small government, free-market, and champions liberty. It clearly illustrates what happens to a society when, in the name of altruism, people are forced to care for the needs of others. On the one hand those who succeed become despised for doing the very thing that lifts society as a whole – innovate. Innovation, in a capitalistic society breeds wealth and, as evidenced in today’s America, many resent those who are rich, feeling the need to increase their tax burden and otherwise penalize them for their success. This of course provides a disincentive to innovate and gain wealth.
On the other hand are those who are the recipient of the wealth of others in the form of government distribution of wealth. This form of “hand out” breeds a feeling of entitlement to the “needs” of life without working for them and provides a disincentive to work to obtain one’s needs. Needs and wants soon take on the form of “rights” and people feel justified in expecting someone to honor their “rights.”
These two scenarios breed a lack of innovation of the worst kind, and this is evidenced in dystopian society painted by Rand. If carried to it’s logical conclusion this kind of society becomes a communistic society using force to ensure artificial equality, stifling innovation, and stamping out any individuality. This, at least in America I think, is further propelled by much of the religious sentiment we have here. We have a tendency to push altruism as the highest of virtues, and condemn money as a prideful sin. Yet, money is the reward of individualism and innovation. We are told (as evidenced in Obama’s speech last night about health care reform) that we have an obligation to care for the seniors and children of our society and that this will be done through medicare and medicaid. Hence, forced altruism is elevated above taking pride in one’s accomplishment of which money is a primary manifestation in a capitalistic society. Indeed, we take away from those who succeed, by force, in the name of altruism, to care for those who have not succeeded.
On a philosophical level Rand lays out her ideas about Objectivism. I will confess that I am not a philosopher, nor do I want to be. I’m simply too pragmatic to tie myself to one particular brand of philosophy. There is much that I agree with in Objectivism, and yet, there are things I cannot reconcile. Rand comes down very hard on altruism even making it out to be a vice rather than a virtue. In Galt’s speech at the end her philosophy is laid out, and I confess I have a hard time drawing all the same conclusions from the axioms that she does (others have claimed this as well). While Rand does leave room for altruism I was left with the idea that it was less virtuous than rational self-interest. I think there is some truth in this idea. But I think I would clarify where that truth is.
To me, to use force for any end, virtuous or not, is a very Machiavellian approach to life which I cannot yield to. Indeed, using force to promote altruism (or some other noble end) is the root of all evil, and in Mormon theology represents Lucifer’s plan. This does not, for me, make altruism a vice, but rather the use of force in the name of altruism is the vice. However, even in Mormonism (and in America in general I think) the promotion of altruism as such a high noble virtue creates a culture in which people feel coerced to sacrifice their livelihood, time, and efforts for the good of those who less fortunate. This, I believe, destroys any power that is gained by self-sacrifice.
I am not willing to jump on board the objectivism train and condemn altruism and self-sacrifice and elevate rational self-interest and pride in one’s achievement. I believe it is a balance. Indeed, we ought to take pride in our livelihood, our mind, our capacity to think, innovate, and we ought to be rewarded handsomely. This is what keeps society progressing. I also think sacrifice and altruism elevates us beyond what can be achieved by the former. I don’t think there is much philosophy, or psychology that can justify such a position, but it is one that is felt intuitively by almost the entire human race. It, arguably, doesn’t help society in the long run, doesn’t help us in a Evolutionary way, nor does it benefit us in the short run (aside from warm fuzzies). But it seems to be some universal constant that altruism is what humans do. However, having said this, altruism, and self-sacrific does not benefit anyone or any society when coercion, whether by force, or culture is the means to exact it. If altruism and self-sacrifice are to have their intended benefits (helping us transcend the personal self) it must be done out of love and compassionate, not out of a sense of duty or obligation.
To conclude, Atlas Shrugged is a very well written (well except for the last third), brilliantly prophetic, important piece of American literature. While Objectivism historically has not received much attention from academic philosophical circles it is attracting more in recent years. Atlas Shrugged will continue to be a guiding influence in the lives of many Americans as our gov’t uses force to extract more and more of our livelihood in the name of altruism. Hopefully, if enough people read this book we will stand up for the virtues of self-interest, innovation, money, capitalism, and liberty before it is too late.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged (Sept. 2009)Oh, boy! Atlas Shrugged! Yes, I confess to having been quite the Ayn Rand acolyte at one time. I’ve pretty much read all her stuff. I was just watching an old movie the other night: The Devil and Miss Jones. If you watch movies from the era Rand was writing in, you can see just how insidious things were at the time. Hollywood has always leaned left, but The Devil and Miss Jones is like an NYC version of the Communist Manifesto, with a set of two-dimensional stock characters: the stupid, fat, greedy, vindictive capitalist vs. the poor, altruistic, communal, idealistic working class in need of a union to represent them. Rand was part of the Hollywood blacklisting that took place – she testified about the communist threat in Hollywood. Did blacklisting go too far to combat the Red Menace? Sure. But seriously, watch some of these old movies, and you will see what I’m talking about.
Rand has a point about the evils of altruism as portrayed in her book: when altruism is mandated it enslaves the most self-reliant minds in service of the least self-reliant ones. While I disagree with her that altruism is evil even when it’s voluntary, it can have some negatives there as well: for the receiver, fostering reliance on the system or community rather than self; and for the giver, creating dependence on the values of the others (what the group rewards) rather than one’s own interests. My primary objection (as a teen) to the Law of Consecration was that it seemed convenient for JS (who brought little to the table) to propose such a system, and that it sounded like communism. The usual response you hear now from church members is that communism is mandatory, and consecration is voluntary. That’s true enough, and it certainly does make a difference, but there is still a downside to altruism that is often overlooked.
What Rand failed to do for me is she failed to present characters that were likable and fully human (admirable, yes; nuanced, no), she failed to present a system that dealt with the full range of human experience (it’s appealing to NTs and libertarians, but she’s somewhat anti-children, anti-marriage, anti-backyard BBQ if you will), and she failed to live up to her own ideals (she never acknowledged that she destroyed her marriage and that of friends the Brandens through her lack of self-awareness, and that she drove her husband the short distance to alcoholism).
@hawkgrrrl I couldn’t have articulated it better. So it sounds like we agree that fundamentally, altruism has a downside, especially when coercion of any kind is involved, but that we are unwilling to throw the altruistic baby out with the bathwater as it were.
As to the characters, yes I agree, and didn’t address that in my review, but should have. Throughout the book I kept wanting more developed characters, characters that were somehow divided between the two ideals and would argue as such. Dagny almost fits the role but eventually succumbs. I found myself liking Dagny the very most and even cheering her on when she refused to join Galt in the valley. As one review I read said, Rand paints the characters on the side she doesn’t like as nothing more than straw men – easily blown away. We don’t feel any attachment to them as they are nothing more than puppets to their ideal (rather unrealistic).
My overall feeling while reading the book is one I typically have when reading a book advocating a certain ideal or philosophy. Something like “yes, but what about this….” In other words, I feel like I understood the point, but wanted desperately to leave room for something else that has valid arguments. I was left a bit saddened, and when I finished the book I kept trying to reconcile her ideas and make them my own, even carrying on a debate in my own mind (yes I’m psycho
:ugeek: ). But at the end of the day I just had to admit that I don’t agree completely with her.Thanks for your thoughts.
Two ideas I’ve heard expressed about Rand stick with me (sorry this isn’t directly about the book): 1. Where are the children, the aged, and the infirm in Rand’s world?
2. “…Ayn Rand’s seductive style of writing that sucks you in and manipulates you into one of her cult-like followers. Once you put the book down and reflect upon it, you then realize you’ve been duped, in which your admiration is replaced with horror.”
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2869756 It’s a credit to your maturity that you received it with more nuance than many do.
Atlas Shrugged would be on my top 20 list of books that most influenced my life. I read it in my early 20’s. I don’t mean that I think everything Ayn Rand wrote was gospel, and agree with all the flaws mentioned above, but the story provides powerful insight into human nature, society and the machinations of business and government. The book is incredibly relevant to our economic/political environment today as daily news is full of giant, dysfunctional organizations beg for help and claim they are too big to fail. It is eerie when I think about Atlas Shrugged, feeling like I am living sometimes in that story.
I consider Atlas Shrugged a “must read” in life.
Thanks jmb, for starting this. It will be no surprise that I’m a HUGE Rand fan. I agree that her characters are poorly drawn. Her non-fiction work is brilliant and shows that that’s her strength. But, as a product of that era, story is everything. I would actually love to see an updated version of this. If some brilliant writer could bring three dimensional characters to an intriguing metaphorical story in this vein…. that would be great. I hear a movie is in the works too.
As to altruism…. I agree with jmb that altruism seems to be a common human pursuit. And it is elevated to sacred status in most cultural paradigms (Christ, mohammed, budhha, krishna). In the human condition however, altruism is functionally an ideal, not a common condition. Therefore, I see the point Rand is making. The best defense of individual liberty in the human condition is selfishness, not selflessness.
Stage 6-ers live the ideal of altruism. Christ, Mother Teresa, Ghandi. But that’s not a practical ideal if we’re all being perfectly honest with ourselves. There is a beautiful irony: we need the selfish, capitalist pigs because that is the leading edge of human advancement, in thought, technology, biology, even ideology. And, I think, that is what Rand is championing. Liberalism, a form of altruism, though sounding Christ-like, is idealism. Objectivism, while sounding hedonistic, is realism.
I agree with the others, this should be required reading of all citizens of the U.S. Though it is in need of an update to today’s storytelling standards, it is a part of the philosophical construct that the founding fathers used in creating the constitution.
I too heard a rumor that a movie is in the works with Angelina Jolie in the Dagny Taggart role (she’s a big fan of Ayn Rand also). The problem I have with the view of capitalists as greedy and stupid is that it’s not the majority of my actual experience. Poor and rich people can both be greedy. They can both be stupid. They can both be smart. They can both be self-reliant. I prefer to focus on “financial freedom” rather than wealth (having the financial resources to free me to do what I want to do, not just amassing wealth for its own sake). So, I’m very opposed to wealth redistribution on principle. I’m not a populist (and both Republicans and Democrats have their brand of populism). I’m much more of an individualist.
There is a story in The Fountainhead that illustrates this concept nicely. The heroine, Dominique Francon, a journalist, goes “undercover” and lives in a slum for a month. She eats simply. She takes cold baths in a pan on the floor of her one room apartment and cooks on a hot plate. She talks to neighbors on her front steps or watches the children for entertainment. Then she gives 2 speeches: one to the slumlords (decrying their greed and hypocritical statements about the poor), and one to those who are advocates of the poor (decrying the laziness and lack of self-sufficiency on the part of the poor who want a free handout). Her boss is angry and says “Why didn’t you give the speeches you gave but instead give them to the other group (tell the slumlords the poor are lazy and tell the poor that the slumlords are jerks)?” And she said basically, “What would the fun be in that?” or, IOW, they didn’t need to hear what they already thought, they needed to hear the opposite argument. There’s no personal growth in an echo chamber.
hawkgrrrl wrote:There’s no personal growth in an echo chamber.
I like this.
I actually appreciate the basic libertarian ideals of limited government and free-market capitalism that this book tries to promote but to me the book was hard to believe from beginning to end in terms of the main characters and entire plot. I kept thinking, “That would never happen, people aren’t really like that, it doesn’t really work that way in real life, etc.” I realize that this was a fictional novel and extreme characters and situations are more dramatic than what actually happens most of the time but the remarkable thing about this book to me is that someone so obsessed with the idea of “objective” reality that also convinced many fans of her thinking even now that she was really onto something and absolutely knew what she was talking about in a way that supposedly directly applies to real-life would have such a simplistic and distorted view of reality. For example, the book makes it sound like every successful business needs one or more “prime movers” with exceptional ability to keep things running in an effective way and without a relative handful of these rare individuals worldwide everything would supposedly start to fall apart and fail miserably. She seems to see things like high-rise buildings and motors as some kind of direct product of the greatness of a supposedly few ingenious people’s minds that had the vision to make all this happen. This attitude reminded me of one of the most interesting observations I have read where David Hume had the following reaction to the general idea of the “argument from design.”
David Hume wrote:But were this world ever so perfect a production,
it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellencies of the work can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter, who framed so complicated useful and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving? That was before the theory of evolution and I think it is still a more accurate description of what has really driven human progress, technology, and production than Rand’s model. Basically it looks like some of the most complicated technology we have now didn’t really depend on any one person to invent all at once out of nowhere but it has generally involved building on a large infrastructure of previously existing knowledge and tools built up over a long process of trial and error largely based on practical experience and routine procedures that are easy enough for people with completely ordinary and commonplace intelligence to grasp and replicate.
In fact, if we look at a real-life example of a rare genius like Tesla that came up with ideas about alternating current, electric motors, and possible applications of radio communication it turned out that he actually ended up as a financial failure. In Rand’s fantasy world it seems like someone like Tesla should have owned large factories and raked in huge profits indefinitely, so why didn’t he? To me it doesn’t look like any conspiracy of “looters” kept him from achieving greater success as much as it simply goes to show that sometimes it takes more than even the best ideas of any one man to create profitable products such as the resources to develop and produce them, a reliable market for them, etc. Tesla also spent much of what he earned on new research as well so maybe the bottom line was not his primary concern to begin with.
I guess it makes sense why Rand would be paranoid about government control after the Bolsheviks took her father’s pharmacy and left her family in relative poverty before she came to the US from the USSR in the 1920s. In fact much of her philosophy looks like more of a negative reaction to socialism and communism than a practical assessment of what people should realistically be expected to care about and why. One interesting thing about her views on what is right or wrong is that they are almost the exact opposite of the Church’s teachings basically favoring selfishness over sacrifice for the greater good, cold-hearted thinking over feelings, pride over humility, etc. My take on this is that some of these ideas remain popular for a reason and it looks like people will always rely on intuition and feelings to some extent to answer important questions especially about what they think is right or wrong so there is no point in acting like we are simply dealing with a blank slate that can be re-written in a radical way simply by thinking about it.
I’ve read it. It’s appallingly badly written, sprawling and that’s just stylistically, without going into the whole politics/philosophy thing. The characters are cardboard cut out, some of the metaphors are appalling and cliched, and when the baddies talk to one another, it’s hard to tell them apart, because they all use the same voice. Her philosophy is also pinched, and dishonestly, because she won’t admit her debts. The most obvious influence is Nietzsche upon her ideas. The only one she admits to is Aristotle. I suppose you could say Marx is an influence on her from the other direction, as she is reacting against him.
The book itself relies on a number of American myths. Notably the one that Americans make themselves rich. To an extent, yes, but the USA is also rich because it sucks resources and labor from so many other parts of the world, whether raw materials, sweatshop labor, coffee/tea/tobacco/palm oil etc growth. The other myth is that ingenuity and hard work make you wealthy. Most of the time they don’t. In fact most of the wealth in the world is inherited. In America, this proportion is increasing, because it is an adolescent country, and as it comes to full maturity, the old aristocratic principles kick in ever more. Even Ms Rand came from a reasonably comfortable background back in Russia, before the Revolution there. Rand’s system produces as many Paris Hiltons as it does John Does slaving away to become a millionaire.
Also, “libertarianism” is merely an American spin on age old ideas that Europeans have been talking about for centuries. It’s Tory anarchism, although I doubt they’d like to use the word anarchism. Get rid of government power, and you merely have corporate power. We can see this already. Big business rules you.
Western economies haven’t collapsed because of socialized intervention, in many cases they’ve collapsed SINCE privatization.
John Galt, by the way, is the name of a Scottish writer. Look him up.hawkgrrrl wrote:There is a story in The Fountainhead that illustrates this concept nicely. The heroine, Dominique Francon, a journalist, goes “undercover” and lives in a slum for a month. She eats simply. She takes cold baths in a pan on the floor of her one room apartment and cooks on a hot plate. She talks to neighbors on her front steps or watches the children for entertainment. Then she gives 2 speeches: one to the slumlords (decrying their greed and hypocritical statements about the poor), and one to those who are advocates of the poor (decrying the laziness and lack of self-sufficiency on the part of the poor who want a free handout). Her boss is angry and says “Why didn’t you give the speeches you gave but instead give them to the other group (tell the slumlords the poor are lazy and tell the poor that the slumlords are jerks)?” And she said basically, “What would the fun be in that?” or, IOW, they didn’t need to hear what they already thought, they needed to hear the opposite argument. There’s no personal growth in an echo chamber.
Yes, and the Fountainhead (which I think is a
betterbook than Atlas Shrugged, and a not bad film) also features the hero raping the heroine… nice. There’s already been one film instalment of Atlas Shrugged I believe. It didn’t do well for a variety of reasons, including perhaps being crippled by its budget, and distribution.
Quote:Innovation, in a capitalistic society breeds wealth and, as evidenced in today’s America, many resent those who are rich, feeling the need to increase their tax burden and otherwise penalize them for their success. This of course provides a disincentive to innovate and gain wealth.
And of course, the irony is that many Americans left Europe to flee persecution by the rich.
“No taxation without representation” might have been their slogan, but the truth was that the American leaders wanted to tax their own people, rather than have another people tax them. And of course, at the time, many of these people, including Jefferson were slave owners.
I read Atlas Shrugged in my youth, but it’s influence on my thinking ebbed as I aged. A major failing, IMO, of the current political right, is that they equate capitalism with corporatism, the first being relatively small businesses in competition with, and supporting one another for the mutual good of everyone such as was common in this country 75-100 years ago. The second is mega corporations, who’s only objective is maximizing value for the exec’s and their investors. They discover it’s easier to buy out the competition, thus eliminating the competition, while increasing their dominance in the market place.
But as our corporations get ever bigger and gain an increasing part of the newly unregulated pie, they often become now to big to fail. I just don’t see the difference between the evils of huge corporations and huge government. Moreover, the huge corporations now have so much money they can buy influence over the government, at the expense of the individual citizens.
Every once in a while you have those experiences where you get repeated exposure to the same concept in a very short period of time. I had never heard of Atlas Shrugged until this week — on a forum for band leaders as I discussed leadership of a quartet I formed four years ago. Someone read one of my posts and said “for a minute there, I thought I was on a discussion forum for Atlas Shrugged”. I didn’t know what he meant. And now, this post bumped to the top of StayLDS, and I’m exposed to Atlas Shrugged again.
On the former discussion forum I referenced in the first paragraph, I had written a piece on how my leadership style has shifted from being a democratic, altruistic band leader who kept musicians busy with gigs, absorbed the overhead out of my own musician’s pay (making me the hardest working, but lowest paid member), only to find the musicians joined additional groups to fill their schedule. They put me to the work of finding substitutes when they weren’t available due to commitments with as many as four other groups at at time. This put me to extra, unpaid work work orienting these temporary substitutes. The permanent musicians to whom I was loyal, and serving, made increasing demands for repertoire THEY WANTED, and picked only the fun aspects of being in a band for their own personal roles. They would join the group saying they would book gigs and do promotion, but they wouldn’t follow through after they got the position in the band. One even tried to oust me from the group I formed due to my musicianship remaining stagnant — stagnant because I was so busy marketing and managing the group, while he sat at home rehearsing, improving, and getting paid on the gigs I booked.
In the last 4 years I have booked over 75 paid performances while the closest gig booker in my quartet booked only 5. I started to get tired of this and even felt a bit resentful of how upside down the whole situation was. I considered winding up the group entirely. I was the entrepreneur (The Atlas) who lost his desire to create wealth due to the burnout. In a way, I was about to shrug and say “I don’t care about generating wealth for these guys anymore. I quit”.
I then indicated on this discussion forum that I was on a new economic/leadership model for the last 6 months that was MUCH more satisfying and motivating. I think this is the approach A. Rand might have advocated…
Given the “taking” attitude of musicians in the quartet, I decided to form a trio with a different culture. All new musicians. Fewer musicians, so it is cheaper to book and it got busy fast. I also formed a labor pool of musicians who are contractors — they are great musicians, but want to just show up and get paid. Many do music full time. It’s a foregone conclusion that they are not expected to hustle gigs. I expect nothing from them other than to do the fun stuff (performing) well. And I have each position covered 3 deep — if one person is not available, I have two others to call who can do the job. I also let them know that I may switch around musicians to ensure I have a group of people who know the repertoire — they only learn it when they are getting paid, it seems.
In return, I set the repertoire, and I pocket a portion of the revenue to meet expenses and compensate me for my time. The musicians get only what is left over after I meet expenses and take a small commission. If someone balks at the pay (and they rarely refuse a gig based on pay, even when below the “minimum” they impose on me), I simply go further down my list to a musician who will take the lower pay. There is an oversupply of good musicians in this town, so I can do it. I’ve been the only constant in the band over a dozen different gigs.
So, based on the synposis here, I believe I have lived both sides of the economic models in Atlas Shrugged. I believe voluntary altruism isn’t sustainable over the long-run when it creates economic inequities for the entrepreneur doing all the work. Even the altruistic entrepreneur can’t survive on the scraps society leaves behind after they consume the fruits of the entrepreneur’s labor.
What about the sick and the afflicted? I believe the answer is for society to cultivate a voluntary, charitable culture in their society. I would love to see Ayn Rand propose a solution which involves guilt-free education, training, and role modeling from opinion leaders which encourages altruistic giving — on Atlas’ own terms. THAT is sustainable. Not forced service or forced giving. And that’s partly why I don’t agree with the tithing question in TR’s — or what I feel can be a bottomless pit of unrequited service at church. Especially in light of D&C 121’s admonition that righteous societies create behavior that flows unto you (in this case, charitable giving) without “compulsory means”.
Now, I have to search the local library for Atlas Shrugged….and read to see if it means what I have interpreted it to mean here.
To those of you have read the book — am I correct in my band management analogy? Does it reflect the dangers of alturism and the advantages of the capitalistic model Ayn Rand writes about in Atlas Shrugged? Or does it need refinement?
Who is John Galt? Cadence wrote:Who is John Galt?
A Scottish writer, who was the biographer of Lord Byron, and who was involved in colonial enterprises in Canada.
Now that’s the real answer.
😆 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_%28novelist%29 Quote:it’s influence on my thinking ebbed as I aged.
This is often the case.
But I read it when young, and thought it was crud then as well
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.