Does this stand on its own as a good book or is it just propaganda for her philosophy?

its hitler the book

literally

It's a very unique book. I'd say you should read it just for the experience. I liked it a lot. I also believe Objectivism is dumb and makes no sense.

AS is best viewed as an argument against corporate welfare, not individual welfare. AS basically states that you shouldn't NEED welfare, but if you accept stuff from another person at least have the decency to feel ashamed of the necessity. Which makes sense outside of a 2017, ultra-automated industrial society. The real damage to the world of AS comes when corporate welfare is introduced, and massive piles of money are routed away from groups of people who DO and sent to groups of people who DON'T.

t. liberal retard

>How is it insane to say that taxation is theft
if you're severely mentally challenged, then it's not insane to say this

It really brings out the haters.

Anonymous internet literature 'experts' here and well-respected 'expert' cunts who write for the New Yorker.

From a craft perspective, reading it is an informative experience. It's a romance in the classical sense.

From a science fiction perspective, it's deeper and more cogent than most. An enjoyable tale.

From a philosophical perspective -- I cannot think of any philosopher who so effectively distilled their precepts into a work of fiction. As for the philosophy itself, read the book and draw your own conclusions.

As with life, an earnest approach will yield better results.

It was a bad idea. Better for Atlas to own up and try to work with everyone through their bullshit.

There it is.

youtube.com/watch?v=_j56IiLqZ9U

Huh. A reasonable opinion.

>Does this stand on its own as a good book
No. This coming from someone who actually likes Ayn Rand on an individualistic front.

The first 300 or so pages are actually pretty good (until the part where Dagny leaves her company to save it) and then becomes horribly boring. The middle drags on forever and is so boring. There's only one interesting part, and I still don't know if it's intentional. Dagny and Readen guy start having an obvious affair and some random guy just blantantly says ''you guys are cheating, that's just wrong''. Both of them are taken aback and try to bullshit that it's fine but they're clearly distraught, and it seems like not even Ayn Rand knew how to defend her archetype ideals. It's interesting if you know the historical downfall of Nathaniel Branden Institute with Ayn Rand cucking her husband who then got cucked herself and hell broke lose.
The third part of the novel is equally meh by going to hell with society crumbling. You find out who is John Galt and it's so fucking shit. He's a literal vanilla blank state with zero personality. A literal walking microphone of her philosophy with none of the attributes associated with her characters. It's such a let down. Then you get the infamous Galt speech. Conceptually, it's genius, as it's the ''final speech of the world, and here's why you suck and go fuck yourself'' but it's so tedious. The reason why people overly hate the speech is not because it's shit, but because the villains feel cartoonish and you don't understand how these archetypes could exist. Though if you imagine Ayn Rand talking directly to people the internet names 'SJW', then she's entirely correct on every front.

The Fountainhead is a much better book.

If you've already read some of it then why do you need Veeky Forums to spoonfeed you an opinion?

> Also Ayn Rand used welfare so whatever argument she makes sounds like complete bullshit once you know that.

>the government steals money from you all your life but fuck you for accepting any of it back
Every time.

I wish people would stop using that as a checkmate to everything she argued. It's just so lazy.

Refute it then.

I've done so many times in the past, but no one cares.
Her philosophy essentially just runs among a hierarchy of values with the survival of your life being the highest value, as it is the basis of all values. You have your life at the top, dictating everything else in the bottom sphere of values. She advocated for what an ideal state would be, and it represents her philosophy, but her life was more important than living for the sake of her philosophy, to be a martyr of what she believed. And even if she did die poor and never accepted social benefits, what would that have even done more?

If you go full spook, people are saying
>hurrr Ayn Rand didn't kill herself because of spooks
She followed her ego and used whatever means to survive. Her life was more important than her philosophy. It's just a boring refutation that says nothing more than
>ah ha! She didn't die for preached and that makes everything she said wrong

I don't agree at all with her on her politics, which is what everyone bitches about, but I do feel she argued well for individualism and for life. Honestly, a lot of Ayn Rand's philosophy makes sense when you place her in the context of advocating for an idealized master morality. I just don't understand why people lose all rational thought when it comes to her.

>Does this stand on its own as a good book
Tissue-thin characters, stilted dialog, poor pacing, nonsensical plot....
It isn't a good book
>Does this stand on its own as a good book
Her 'philosophy' was never formally proposed or presented and the book itself does a terrible job of defining exactly what it is, really.
So it sucks at both.

Space Giant is a unique book; that doesn't mean you should read it for the experience.

>"Hi! Not only do I not understand how taxes work, I don't grasp what Rand publicly taught about accepting welfare!"
the post

>her life was more important than living for the sake of her philosophy,
This is a misreading. Rand's [retarded] arguments of 'Man qua Man' are ALL ABOUT how we must live proper lives in accordance with our philosophy or we deserve death.
FFS, half of AS is about how people who will do anything to survive deserve death!
You got it exactly backwards. Rand spent her life telling others 'you better be ready to give up everything to live according to Objectivism' and then didn't do it herself.
That's the fucking point.

>ALL ABOUT how we must live proper lives in accordance with our philosophy or we deserve death.
lol no. You're the one who completely misread her.

>half of AS is about how people who will do anything to survive deserve death!
What? That's also wrong.

>Rand spent her life telling others 'you better be ready to give up everything to live according to Objectivism' and then didn't do it herself.
Yeah no. You even contradict yourself. She says people should live in accordance to their philosophy, and I've explained how with the use of her hierarchy of values, her own life is more important than the preservation of her philosophy. No one ''deserves death'', you fucking idiot.

>Heroic Howard Roark refuses all aid, all altruism, even as he faces ruin and starvation
>Heroic John Galt's speech has a thrid line of 'I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values'.
>Rand argues, often, that violating values is death - that to choose to violate your values is to choose death. And to give or accept altruism is, she argues, against her values and to do so is to choose death. yet she accepted altruism to avoid cancer.
So - yeah. She argues that giving or accepting altruism is the same as death, yet she accepted altruism.
>"No one ''deserves death'', you fucking idiot."
Oh, I agree. But Rand didn't!
Ever actually read Atlas Shrugged? In the book 300 men, women, and children die and Rand carefully explains how each and every one of them *deserved* to die. What crimes had they committed?
-One man had taken out a government subsidized small business loan to start his business
-One woman thought she had a right to vote in democratic elections
-The children's' father worked for the government
And those were all reasons, said Rand, that those people that died were NOT innocent and DID deserve to die.
You know, it's funny. It is almost as if you don't know what you're talking about, isn't it?

And Ayn Rand accepted no aid or altruism? Are you seriously saying that accepting social benefit she paid for is akin to asking others to sacrifice themselves for you?
Is a fire insurance altruism when you collect if your house burns down? Do you even know what is altruism?

>-One man had taken out a government subsidized small business loan to start his business
>-One woman thought she had a right to vote in democratic elections
>-The children's' father worked for the government
I don't remember any of that. Could you give proper context? Regardless, the problem is your wording. No one deserves to die, it is your actions that lead to your demise and that is the character's failing for not having proper morals to their success. Ayn Rand never argued that anyone 'deserves' to die.

I thought The Fountainhead was bretty good desu. At least that has some interesting thoughts about creative individuality vs people pleasing.

But also I was kind of a sucker for the art deco/noir aesthetic that came with it. It's a comfy book.

...

She goes to great fucking lengths in both her philosophy and AS to make clear any kind of welfare is morally wrong and that individidual beings who are on welfare support are parasites underserving of humane treatment

You sound like an apologist

>lol X is shitty XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXD
Hey man, don't throw Atlas Shrugged, you gotta THROW IT

>"Are you seriously saying that accepting social benefit she paid for"
Translation
>"I don't understand how the taxation system works"
Yeah. I know.
Rand *hated* the welfare program because (unlike you) she understands how it works.
But she still took the money.
>I don't remember any of that.
One of the major events in the book and you 'don't remember'? A major fucking plot point she built up to for 100+ pages and described in excruciating details and you 'don't remember'? One of the most reviewed, critiqued, and discussed things she has ever written and you 'don't remember'?
FFS, son, stop talking about a book you don't remember!
>"...it is your actions that lead to your demise..."
Not according to Rand! Look at the examples I gave - a woman deserved death for her *opinion*; children deserved death *because of their father's occupation*.
You can't even keep up with *this thread*; why are you trying to discuss entire books?!

>A major fucking plot point she built up to for 100+ pages and described in excruciating details and you 'don't remember'? One of the most reviewed, critiqued, and discussed things she has ever written and you 'don't remember'?
I haven't read AS in years. Your phrasing on this context seems dubious and it's why I'm asking where does this take place. And all you're doing is going ''lol''

>a woman deserved death for her *opinion*; children deserved death *because of their father's occupation*.
That's what I'm talking about. Here does this happen.

>I haven't read AS in years
It shows. Please explain why you are arguing about the contents of a book you clearly can't recall.
>Where does it take place
The Winston Tunnel Scene; also called the Train Crash scene (although there isn't an actual crash, really).
Want some direct quotes, Oh Forgetful One?
>"It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them."
>"The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan"
>"The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives"
>"The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge."
etc.
She argues they weren't innocent because of their beliefs, thoughts, and such horrible crimes as taking out a loan subsidized by the government and therefore deserved to die.
..............
Since it is obviously you don't actually know what you are talking about, I suggest you pick up a copy of 'The Objectivist Ethics' and read at great length how Rand believed you should die before you compromise your core principles because such compromise is worse than death and will kill you anyway, and finally grasp why her taking Medicaid at the end of her life was rank hypocrisy.

I always had a problem with the Galt's Gulch. One month there were three people living there and 90 days later there are hundreds with everything from gold mines to auto plants running in this remote, isolated valley high in the mountains completely isolated from the world.
Where the Hell did they get food?!

You SHOULD read it.

Just be aware of the skewed viewpoint.
It helps if read (or watch) about how self-servingly
hypocritical Rand was in the latter half of her life.

Be warned that it's a slog of a mess.

>Please explain why you are arguing about the contents of a book you clearly can't recall.
Because I was arguing her philosophy, not solely her book?

>Want some direct quotes
Oh, that.

>was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan
Gotten his mine from the government rather than through his work.

>was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directive
Mother who didn't want her children to become soldiers, yet was married to a husband who enforced people to go to war.

>a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge."
A wife who was an idiot, voting for people to steal, giving them power by not thinking.

Don't you see how context matters rather than just saying
>lol she wanted people dead because of what they thought

And it wasn't that these people deserved to die, but how they weren't innocent.

>Since it is obviously you don't actually know what you are talking about, I suggest you pick up a copy of 'The Objectivist Ethics' and read at great length how Rand believed you should die before you compromise your core principles because such compromise is worse than death and will kill you anyway
And to take Ayn Rand at her word, to live for her own philosophy and stake, would be dogmatic and anti rationality. You should not forsake your core principles. I have read the The Objectivist Ethics, and the core value is still your own life, over your principles.

>why her taking Medicaid at the end of her life was rank hypocrisy.
Not really. As I keep saying, she valued her life more than her philosophy. And that is in line with her philosophy.

They farmed it.

From the free market
:^)))))

No you shouldn't, read some political philosophy or something

Duck season!

itt: socialist brainlets and hopeless keynes diciples

You seem unable to observe into what a massive debt mess big government spending, no matter if under the guise of "welfare" or whatever, has driven the world.

I do give you one thing, though, Ayn Rand's books are not realy enjoyable.

There are way better ways to lern about freedom, like reading hayek, mieses, friedman etc.

The hardcore randists always seem to either be massive cockgobblers who would murder a thousand if they can make a buck, or illiterates who don't understand what they're saying or doing.

>Because I was arguing her philosophy, not solely her book?
You've proven you don't know either since her book contradicts what you claim she says in her philosophy. See how that works?
>Gotten his mine from the government rather than through his work.
No, he got a *loan*. He has to pay it back of he loses the mine. That is how banks work, too. If you recall one of the Great Heroes of the Book is a banker who makes his money *issuing* loans and the other Great Heroes *use* Mulligan's loans to start their businesses even in Galt's Gulch. Rand thinks this guy deserves death for where the loan comes from.
>Mother who didn't want her children to become soldiers, yet was married to a husband who enforced people to go to war.
The father enforced business regulations, not fought wars, and there is no mention of what the mother did or did not want the kids to do. Besides, how is any of that the fault of the children?
>A wife who was an idiot, voting for people to steal, giving them power by not thinking.
None of that is stated; we don't even know if the woman had actually voted. And since when is being a poor voter justification for death?
Oh. Right. For Rand.
You are just a poor apologist for something you can't grasp.
>'to take Rand at her word would be anti-rationality'
Oh, that is a real giveaway. You're another Ayndroid, and a poor one.
>I have read the The Objectivist Ethics
And obviously remember it less well than AS. Or are lying about both.

>They farmed it.
Bullshit.
Not with three guys they didn't. It takes at least a year of full-time labor to get a farm to produce food and one man operations? With heavy automation, great land, and a lot of experience you could feed maybe 9-12 more people besides the farmer. Maybe.
Not only that, the three guys there? Dairy cows and chickens; wheat and tobacco; and an orchard!
It can be 5-7 years before an orchard produces *anything*!
But the best was the guy who was supposedly raising tobacco.
In Colorado.
In the mountains.
I mean - really?
So you have a guy with an orchard, producing nothing, a guy with tobacco fields that will produce nothing, and a chicken coop that might produce enough eggs for 20-40 people, a dairy that might produce enough milk for 20-40 people, and wheat fields that might produce enough for 20-30 people.
1) That is all VERY labor intensive, even before the orchard produces it is work, every day, doing stuff like digging ditches
2) It will produce food at specific times of the year only
3) It can't support the huge numbers of people that supposedly flood in!
Plus - Colorado. In the mountains. Short growing season, no Spring wheat, only one wheat crop, and a very limited amount of rain. Wheat almost certainly would be a tiny yield just from the arid soil.
The guys in Galt's Gulch would starve to death the first Winter.

>OP - "is this book good?"
> commenters from Veeky Forums - "no"
>Randroids - "welfare sucks"

>I don't grasp what Rand publicly taught about accepting welfare!"
no u
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
>The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism.

>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 . . . .

>The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

>I not understand how taxes work
I don't even know what you think I think, I'll just assume you've misinterpreted me as bad as you've misinterpreted Rand.

best book of all time

Veeky Forums is filled with marxist, James Joyce, loving subjectivist nihlists.

karl marx used capitalism

1) Scholarships != welfare *and* the quote specifically opposes welfare itself.
2) I stand corrected: you don't know how taxes work and in those passages Rand lied and said she didn't, either.
>BTW - don't think I haven't noticed how carefully you are avoiding mention of how Rand thinks children deserve to die if their father works for the government

The apologist is also not explaining how one wheat farmer fed hundreds of people, either.

marx said capitalism was necessary and often sung its praises in instigating the technological development needed for his utopian ideals.

rand denigrated welfarism and its recipients....then became one.

atlas shrugged is really a waste of time. its "philosophy" can be written on the back of an envelope and its poorly written. Even the Fountainhead is better.

>The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind.
can u even read my dude?

It's again
>>BTW - don't think I haven't noticed how carefully you are avoiding mention of how Rand thinks children deserve to die if their father works for the government
1) No, she didn't. In the very fucking link I posted she said that there's nothing inherently wrong with accepting a government job.
2) Even if she did, how would that be relevant to this point? I wouldn't have to "carefully avoid" mentioning something that's completely unrelated to the discussion so far.

>The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism.
Oddly enough, I was responding to this when mentioning scholarships.
Weird, huh?
*FURTHERMORE*, if that is so then why is this,
>"The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan"
Bad enough the guy deserves death?
See? When other people take out a government loan they are evil and deserve what they get. But when Rand takes money from other people its ok, because reasons.
There is a word for 'it is bad when you do it, but OK when I do it' and that word is 'hypocrisy' , which is what people have been saying.
See how remembering AS (the topic of this thread) can show you Rand was a hypocrite?
Thank you for helping to prove that she frequently contradicted herself!

I liked the book better when I was a Randian myself, but once you start to learn more about politics and economics, you realize that her ideas are severely outdated and that government intervention is a necessity to have a functioning society.

Her fetishism for hardworking company owners is pretty awkward, and the book could've easily been a lot shorter.

I still recommend reading it once though, it's considered a strong staple in right-wing thought and some of her ideas did inspire me in some ways.

T. Conservacuck

>In the very fucking link I posted she said
But in the quote *I* posted she said it mean children were 'guilty' and deserved the horrible death the got!
this is actually
over again - you keep help proving Rand was inconsistent and contradictory!
>In the very fucking link I posted she said
You've lost track: this thread is about the book Atlas Shrugged (this is Veeky Forums). This discussion began with,
>"...half of AS is about how people who will do anything to survive deserve death!"
Rand saying kids deserved to die because their dad worked for dat ebull gub'mint IS THE TOPIC, you just got tied up in defending your idol's self-contradictory "philosophy".
Not a surprise, really, since you can't remember the book yet felt like chiming in to say someone with a copy of it open in front of them doesn't know what's in it.

I don't know who you think I am or what you're on about but was my first post in this thread since >>The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism.
>Oddly enough, I was responding to this when mentioning scholarships.
>Weird, huh?
Oh, so you were just nitpicking.

I hope you just have a particular blind spot toward Rand and don't interpret all literature this ineptly. The point of the tunnel scene is not that everybody on the train DESERVED to die but that they died as a result of their own ideology. These people might have benefited in the short term from collectivist policies, but they had unforeseen and catastrophic consequences. That doesn't mean the people on the train were evil. Some were, some were innocently deceived or taken in and some, like the children, were clearly innocent. The kids are just there to make the mother's fate more ironic, because she defended her husband's actions on the basis that he had to support their kids, but his actions ended up leading directly to their death.

>This discussion began with,
>>"...half of AS is about how people who will do anything to survive deserve death!"
>Rand saying kids deserved to die because their dad worked for dat ebull gub'mint IS THE TOPIC
I already said I was never part of that discussion.

>I don't know who you think I am or what you're on about
What I am 'on about' is you're essentially off-topic.
>Oh, so you were just nitpicking.
No, I am analyzing what someone actually said.
>The point of the tunnel scene is not that everybody on the train DESERVED to die but that they died as a result of their own ideology.
So, just to sum up, they didn't "deserve" to die, they just were guilty of dying because of the results of their thoughts, beliefs, actions, and associations?
You do know what 'deserve' means in this context?
What am I saying! You just proved you don't.
>I already said I was never part of that discussion.
The instant you jumped into this discussion in this thread - yes, you are.

...and no one wants to talk about all the starving supermen....

If you are going to defend Rand's shitty writing, please explain the massive plot holes, like 'why didn't Galt starve to death that winter?'

>Randroids rant
>someone points our Rand was a tool
>Randroids slink away
erry time

ever heard of a guy called jesus christ? rand obviously figured out the deal with the fishes and the loaves of bread.

can you post a list of essential works, like the top two or three that you believe are a good jumping off point?

lmfao

Fpbp

read john locke

It's the autistic fedora edgelord's Bible if he's not retarded enough to go for Mein Kampf. And a really shitty book.

>lolbertarians