OT: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CONCHO: Fascinating stuff. In terms of monetary policy and fiscal strategy, the next few months (and years) are going to be real interesting here in the good old U.S. of A.

[kismetsdad]

Wall Street Journal revisited Atlas Shrugged January 9, 09. The article mentioned how America is starting to resemble to looters of the book. It also noted that of people who have actually read the book, it is considered the second most influential book they have read after the bible. (Library of Congress survey 1991).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

[kismetsdad]

Wall Street Journal revisited Atlas Shrugged January 9, 09. The article mentioned how America is starting to resemble to looters of the book. It also noted that of people who have actually read the book, it is considered the second most influential book they have read after the bible. (Library of Congress survey 1991).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

[kismetsdad]

Wall Street Journal revisited Atlas Shrugged January 9, 09. The article mentioned how America is starting to resemble to looters of the book. It also noted that of people who have actually read the book, it is considered the second most influential book they have read after the bible. (Library of Congress survey 1991).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

[kismetsdad]

Wall Street Journal revisited Atlas Shrugged January 9, 09. The article mentioned how America is starting to resemble to looters of the book. It also noted that of people who have actually read the book, it is considered the second most influential book they have read after the bible. (Library of Congress survey 1991).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

[kismetsdad]

Wall Street Journal revisited Atlas Shrugged January 9, 09. The article mentioned how America is starting to resemble to looters of the book. It also noted that of people who have actually read the book, it is considered the second most influential book they have read after the bible. (Library of Congress survey 1991).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

[davelj]

I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[davelj]

I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[davelj]

I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[davelj]

I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[davelj]

I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[blahblahblah]

Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?

[blahblahblah]

Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?

[blahblahblah]

Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?

[blahblahblah]

Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?

[Author]

Posts