Why "Atlas Shrugged" Changes Lives 

How so? Do you have an example?

I felt that way after the fountainhead

@@EyeThreeGems Like she wrote the book about you.

@@TzUuup John Galt is who I envisioned myself as a kid being by the time I became a man. Not literally as in I am that character... but like...The very description of the character was my “image” of myself...like they’re literally complete parallels... as a kid if you’d had asked me what my religion was, I probably would’ve just told you exactly what Galt was saying... but I got older and gave into the world, I surrendered that ideal and now it exists as a fantasy. When I read Atlas Shrugged it was the first time in a long time I felt so connected to it again... that deep inner personal belief in oneself. The idea you could do anything if you just “tried.”

Me too

I swear by my life and the love of it, this novel was only slightly better than 50 shades of gray.

@family lowe actually ayn rand argued that in essence love is the most selfish thing and it actually serves one's self.. In total contradiction to what you are saying... It's ayn rand 101

When asked how the Nazis could have done the cruel things they did, a Nuremberg prosecuter said they lacked empathy for others. How much money and power is enough?

lowe sooooo if you have worked hard and been successful then allowing yourself to be a doormat to people who care nothing about and only care about what material things they can take from you -- THAT is being empathetic? I don't think so. Your problem is you only look at the obligation of empathy as a one-way path. Empathy is both ways or it is not empathy, it is merely using other people for your own selfish means.

what and who has the right to define what public good or right is? anyway? the state !!! the state / government is just a fictional abstract notion a shady middleman

"No!" says the man in Washington! "It belongs to the poor!"

Shawn Knepper has been underlined by the government now

monotheist religions are the root problem

No one succeeds without the help of others. If your parents thought only of themselves you might not have lived even a few days to become the big success you are.

@@emilandersen8628 Got me to tears :'D

The same with me, at my mid 20s, when I was still in Cuba, it really changed my entire life.

How the hell did you get a copy of Atlas Shrugged in freakin Cuba?!?!! You'd think that would be verboten in a society that is antithetical to Ayn Rand's way of thinking...glad you did though.

@@peterlamont647 many former communist dictatorships have opened up to the Western world. Even countries with so called "Communist parties" like Vietnam and China are more on the market leaning side of Socialism.

Cuba is very much still a communist country and they are still under an embargo. They still tightly control people's freedoms. I find it frightening that they have somehow lasted this long...maybe 1984 is possible after all. In any case though, in the long run, theft is not a valid method for running a nation. Blind theft is just how you get blind poverty. To your point though, countries like Vietnam and China have indeed seen just how fast they would all be starving and completely destitute and so they quickly made a crony-capital system under a dictatorship. The actual pure communist part didn't last very long and killed millions. Now they are just on a one way course with toppling over from being a top heavy government. Just like the soviets. Europe is actually on the same course...The US is as well, but not quite as fast.

Illuminati- John Todd

See akdart dot com/lib71.html

RU-vid won't permit URLs in comments; it shouldn't be hard to convert that string to one.

"Republicans", because Republicans are the ones who are looking to subsidize the health and education industries? Grow up.

at the end of the day its all the same the two-party system is an illusion

Sounds like hog wash.

Nice I received a copy from my girlfriend last year.

69 hell yeah

Why?

is it the only novel you ever read?

69 years of brain worms. Get better soon champ.

I'm from Venezuela, I'm 32 years old, I read Atlas Shrugged 6 years ago, Gulag Archipielago 3 years ago... Living here, in this tropical-socialist madness helped me understand better these books, I'm so thankful to Ayn Rand, because her books gave me better tools to face life here, and leftist clowns I have to deal with very often. Your comment catched my eye because you are exactly double of my age and talked about these 2 books, that I loved so much.

@@alcidesyfedra1381 Ayn Rands ideal world would fuck most Venezuelans over as looters. Keep that in mind.

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 how so?

Pretty sure Napoleon is asserting that the poor are looters. Of course, if he is, then he completely misunderstood the entire book and the underlying philosophy to a _staggering_ degree.

The same.

Atlas Shrugged sheds light on the corruption of the government that is walking fast forward to 1984. Rand is showing how the government is making us the sacrificial lamb's on the government's alter of the bottomless pit of greed and a thirst for power at any cost. It is not in the service of the government to expose the details of how the government is striving for wholesale slavery.

Great rebuttal. There has to be a middle way. To much altruistic Govt and you get the stripping of individual rights as seen in the light of the pandemic. Supported by do-gooders and no argument was to be brooked.

The wealthy aren't to be praised by default. James Taggart and all of Washington are wealthy characters and regarded as highly immoral by Rand's intention, partly because they don't practice equal trade, they want things given to them. The wealthy you're describing match that description. Rand doesn't say to regard the wealthy as heroes, but rather that those who invent, create, work, earn, are heroes. Rearden understood that without his employees he couldn't pour steel, he valued them and paid them according to his reasonable judgement of their value, which came out to be more than any union in the nation. His employees were also good, hard working people who believed in fair exchange and EARNED their pay, they weren't the type to milk the clock or push blame. Just wanted to point that out. People like Rearden don't exist though, and if they do, they don't make it to the top, not anymore. Because the modern businessman has been taught his whole life how to work the system. The modern businessman is a collectivist who uses government friends, purchases government friends via lobbying, to get what he wants. The modern businessman does not believe in fair exhange, he believes in getting ten times the value of his production, and he gets it often times with his own form of anti-dog-eat-dog system, such as how gas stations don't compete anymore. They've all raised their price and are keeping it there, so that they can all enjoy higher profit. It's not as filthy as using the government to force you to buy gas, but it's still a form of collectivism, because the modern businessmen aren't interested in innovation, they're interested in making as big a fortune as they can on the least quality, most basic product possible. They aren't interested in advancing their product, or competing. They'd rather focus so solely on profit that they would rather make a failure of a product that should shame them, their company, and their employees that make it; and they use teams of psychologists to figure out the best way to sell their inferior products. The modern businessman is a sleazy slimey worm who doesn't want to work, doesn't want to create, invent, or make their product the best in the world. No, they want to be as completely inferior as possible, while still pulling the biggest profits that should belong only to real quality. This is where Rand's philosophy gets interesting, because she seemed to believe that a devotion to profit and creating value for shareholders PROVED that you were an innovative thinker, a hard worker, and that you had a brain, but we see today that the modern innovative thinkers have found a way to be inferior scum, making inferior scum to sell for the highest profit possible. It clearly takes a lot of thinking and inventive ideas to manipulate the psyche to actually buy worthless products, but that doesn't mean these scum makers are heroes. The world truly started declining when the real thinkers, the real innovators, decided to stoop to the level of inferior competitors and started making inferior products that are built to fail intentionally. Nothing I've heard, read, or learned of Rand and her ideology made an exception for inferiority. Her heroes are built on taking pride in superiority. As for selflessness being a bad thing, it would be bad for those volunteers, and you. It would be bad for them to risk their lives for no reward solely because they believe it's expected of them to be promoted up the social ladder. Most people can tell when someone is being charitable for clout, or because they believe they're supposed to be, and in those cases its pointless and hurts themselves and those they're helping. Themselves because they're not taking into account their own needs and risks. The ones they're helping because they should see no value in anything being done for them that the provider didn't actually want to do for their own enjoyment, and because they usually don't plan on reciprocating equal value. If those being helped planned on paying the helper somehow, that would be a little different but it would still need to be purely because they want to pay the helper, not because they're expected to. If those needing help had already decided they would somehow pay anyone willing to help with an equal value to the help they're receiving, and those willing to help are helping because it brings them joy, they take pride in it, and believe they deserve to be paid, that is the ideal situation.

Objectivism doesn't raise any issue with private, voluntary charity; only the kind in which people are forced to contribute as a moral duty. And no, the wealthy are not to be praised. The productive are to be praised whether or not they're wealthy. John Galt is framed as the epitome of an ideal man in Rand's world, and (SPOILER): he works as a day laborer for a railroad in order to sustain himself without violating his principles. He's not wealthy.

It’s good to see some common sense in this comment section. Humans are not made for the pure selfishness rand proposes

​​@@oscarpine4735Actually humans are naturally selfish. It is part of human nature. Selfish only means concern for self. The word has no moral connotation. Being responsible for oneself is admirable. Children are naturally selfish. Sharing is a learned socialization attribute. Most children are taught to share.

This is a good way to use the book but don't swallow it whole thinking life is that simple and clear cut. People can bend a little and help each other out as well.

Most people don't like Libertarians/Capitalists in general they think we are uncaring because we follow the system in self interest yet we follow that because it helps the whole of society more. If you show me something better I'll jump on it but for now the data by far points to free markets

@@jasonmarch1983 Exactly! Besides, most of the people who disagree with Ayn Rand or us who read her just call her/us idiots with no other argument but feelings and misconceptions (I mean I hate Marx but that doesn't forbid me reading The Capital or his essays; true convictions hold tight!)

SOLAR POWER. QUIT KILLING EARTH WITH HER RESOURCES. SOLAR POWER. OR YOU ALL SUFER. EVEN YOUR BUSINESSESS

@@Onlymelan8e nuclear clearly the way to go more efficient and less pollution/cleaner than solar

@@jasonmarch1983 I agree. Less pollution but more chance of a catastrophe.

Actually Optima, try this: Next time you run into a person who says Ayn Rand was an idiot etc... quiz them on the book. You'll find that these anti-intellectuals in 99% of cases never even read it. After all, how would a moron have the patience for a long & thorough book in the first place?

She has made herself perfectly clear.

Peter Lamont wow, bro, easy on the pride

Absolutely my philosophy

Man this Rand cult is incredible

nah, he shrugged

Yes, to achieve them gains.

Hydraulic, pnuematic, and, honesty.

Yeah, saw it on a Van Halen album.

Hysterical

there is no real capitalism at least no in its pure form anymore Read also Frederic Bastiat works about economics and laws. Any government intervention in economics / in the market or social cultural values or marriage (lgbt/immigration/religion) etc. are not in alignment with true democracy true republican liberty principles. They should not promote or repress nothing just be neutral to societal,religious or cultural free time or activities values of individuals. Government's role should be to protect the national sovereignty and maintain a real and independent judicial system with maintain order and the respect for laws inside the nation. Like a referee in a football match being unbiased and non partisan. Of course this is a utopia the secrete societies or discreet societies political oligarchical plutocrat think tanks and shadow deep state will never permit this as it will be the end of their tyranical subtle power.

That why the Founders put the Bill of Rights as Amendments, to highlight them. And to put government on notice that the Individual is paramount! Not organizations!

The only ones capable of exercising rights are individuals. Thus individual rights are the irreducible primary.

"NUH HUH! GOBERMENT MAKES ALL THE MONEY AND THATS WHERE RICH COME FROM BRAH. AND THEY HARE HORDING IT FROM ALL THE POORS" Sorry, I couldn't resist being the faux troll with a complete lack of awareness.

It just seem communism reverse to me

Because of the Bible I can grasp the lessons in Atlas Shrugged 😏😎🤓. The HILARIOUS thing most people in this so called christian country named The United States of a America are biblically empty and misguided when it comes to the depth of the bible literature. This includes the so called experts! The Holy Spirit is the only One who can fathom and help you reach the depths of the lessons and guidance the bible possesses!😎🤓🔥♨️

Have you ever heard of the Bible? That ancient book is infinitely more important than the words of a spiritually blind false-intellectual. You’re missing out. Read the holy scriptures and pray to Jesus for eternal life.

Then read Middlemarch for God's sake.

Read more Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. I'm sure Ayn Rand did, in the original Russian.

What's happening in europe that switzerland is the best country?

@@Starbuck32123 Switzerland has the lowest tax rate and it has tax competition between the Kantons (counties). Different tax rate in every Kenton and there is direct democracy.

@@reneschaefer4027 but isnt it very difficult to move there ?

@@alhiddell6810 no if you are German and can proof that you have a job in Switzerland it is easy. But know I live in the UK and I am financially free anyway with my property investments there.

@@arend050F xXxX! cxxxxAad

How so Rick? Thanks

@@kab0ky It makes you view the world differently. People in need do not deserve the fruit of labor of other men. Altruism forced upon people by the government or other powers is morally wrong.

@@smorre4004 So what shoud you do let them die? And what about the buisnes owners are they deserving of the porduct of 1000s of others labor?Not to mention the monopolistic prectices of big buisness that ultimately supress political and personal freedoms. Not all citizens are born into equal economic status and a large majority of them have no way out, souldnt we use the state to help andsave the lves of those whoneed it? But inorder to do hat we need to end couruption and buyouts from corperations.

@@greekgold4808 Nothing's stopping people from doing charity. Business owners own the means of production, the things that create wealth. His employees can buy their own means of production to create wealth for themselves. States don't help, they just steal from other people and take it for themselves, only giving crumbs to those in need. Your corruption and buyouts are possible because of big government.

Man is an end in himself.

Beautifully said bud

@chandllerburse737 Without the men of ability (or the rich as you call them), there would be no plumbing to fix or garbage to dispose of.

I was about to comment that myself

Can you teach me I am 29, feeling like going against the whole world.

I have never encountered a critic of Rand who has actually read Rand, let alone understood her stuff. As you point out, they always claim to have read her, but some quick questioning reveals that they simply parrot a few catchphrases they've heard from others who never read or understood Rand.

+Aristotle Grumpus they probably read their quotes from tumblr so don't worry.

I share with others because it is intrinsically "good", not as some sort of ploy to motivate them to share with me.

excellent point. i've always had a good feeling about rand and the deeper i delve into her work, the more i'm convinced that she had noble intentions. personally i think its a bit of an ego tussle, i guess some of us are just happy and okay with admitting that we like money and we like making it. there are people who want to believe that they're being altruistic because they care for humanity, and just dont want to admit that they're doing it for their own selfish reasons. i guess the supporters of objectivism are just honest with their emotions, and its something i respect. i hope more and more people will hop on over. i've gone through so much switching with my own political philosophies, and even devoted time and energy to volunteer work because I wanted to "help people". now looking back, i have no desire to do volunteer work. absolutely none. my life has gotten better ever since i started appreciating making money and i have no regrets. also as a woman, dagne is such an inspiration to me.

Nothing is intrinsically good. Why do you put the word "good" in quotes? Curious. Something is good or bad as determined by an objective standard. And it's not a "ploy." It's self-interest. It's fairness. It's justice. I refrain from theft and murder, not as a ploy to stay out of priosn, but because both are objectively wrong.

Very insightful. I agree. I think many philosophers fail to incorporate the care of children because it’s not their primary concern. It is deemed as women’s work. Which allows for success off the back of women. I believe due to biological differences women will remain the second class citizens of our society. The burden of child rearing being the cause. I personally do not advocate for women to have children if they want to truly contribute to society

@@LibertyMadison Thanks for your reply. Ayn Rand most have agreed with you since she never had children.

@@LibertyMadison Isn't this difference in biology why the concept of families and marriage was developed and has been a successful model for thousands of years? The man works longer hours and generates more income while the woman stays home and looks after the children. The key is, the man is expected to contribute all of his income to the family, so the differences balance out. Women, in such an honest relationship as I've just outlined, don't ever need to be "second class citizens". Also, I think you will find that a lot of women at some point in their lives would choose to have children so "advocating that woman don't have children" might not be a realistic stance.

I am reading it at 40 ...I hope it’s not too late

@@lawaladebeshin8832 It is never to late to become selfish dick.

EVERYTHING about Rand is clunky and leaden:)

I came here because it’s very symbolic of what’s happening in Minneapolis

Same

That's the type of reasoning that results in low scores on IQ tests.

Appeal to authority. So the fact that less people hate the video is proof they are STUPID. LOL. Your response is stupid, and if the ones that love the video are just as stupid, my argument is your position is untrue.

Stick to DJing.

LOL true.

In my own selfishness, I choose to do what is best for others, because that will in turn help me. But Ayn Rand says that it is okay to focus on yourself and feel good about yourself. That society measures your virtue or worthiness by how much you helped another. But you can't be in a position to help others without first providing for yourself sufficiently. You are probably self interested most of the time and don't even know it. Ayn Rand's philosophy says essentially what Adam Smith does in the Wealth of Nations, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".

Hey, now you are being condescending! Of course everyone acts in their own self interest. But you have not touched on any of the points above. The selfish Ayn Randers often don't want to help others, instead they just say that if you struggle, why don't you just work harder. Pull your self up by the bootstraps! and so on. Its NAIVE, and it does not work.

"It doesn't work" Has Ayn Rand's ideas ever been put to the real test in any society?

"You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins; it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish"

Blabla, Frode Shrugged :)

Who, Rand? Are you out of your mind?

+Lehmann Peters It depends on your definition of "good" (altruism?) ^^

A writer that promotes selfishness is world's greatest person? Wow. I'd think maybe someone that feeds the hungry, brings world peace, but you say a writer of SELFISHNESS. I guess people seek out that which confirms that their lifestyle is ok, even when it's an immoral one.

Read the damn books before commenting for fucks sake

Jimmy Curry Turns our we are all self interested. Every single human accomplishment is the result of individual, self interested effort, and there’s not a single shred of evidence to refute either of these two statements. Full stop.

mrrolight if you believe that I hope you choose lord of the rings, it wasn’t necessary for you to cripple yourself further by ignoring truth but it will make competing against you all the more easy.

The funny thing about this attack line is that The Lord of the Rings also has a powerful message- that power corrupts and virtue prevails, two things the Left likes to ignore.

And you have never read it.

If you think Atlas Shrugged is a bunch of bullshit you should check out The bible.

I would have said, Liberalism or the current Progressivism were. Because wishful thinking is integral in every outcome they propose and the have a track record of blaming the wrong cause for the wrong reasons and proposing a cure that creates as many or more problems in the long term. Was that Libertarian or a liberty movement like the Tea Party that you were referring to?

And that's why Rand considered it a threat worse than liberalism.

Aaronlcyrus It was Ayan Rand who got me interested in philosophy at 13 which was a long time ago.Years later I got a degree in Philosophy but book companies would only publish me as an anti-moralist. So joke em' if they can't take a fuck. That should tell you something. Unfortunately, I also wanted to be Ragnar Danneskjöld, so.... people are quick to judge an honorable scoundrel, in a normal fictional format they are the transformative characters the act as a catalyst that enables the hero's transformation. You will not find them in any in stories written after 1960, becasue of the threat they represent to the Cultural Marxist (what liberals etc. really are) movement's agenda. Robert Louis Stevenson's Long John Silver in "Treasure Island" is an example, He is both villain and transformative character.They are not necessarily the villain either and can be a neutral party.

@Harbinger So is progressivism. Libertarianism starts with the noble goal that all men will act responsibly if given liberty. But some men don't act that way with liberty, and their evil tendencies must be contained. I think *most* can handle liberty, but not all. And if you listen to 99% of Libertarians, they favor withdrawal from the world stage and the threat of force used on that stage to act as a counter-balance to tyrants. Sorry, tyranny can only be resisted through a threat of force. Progressivism starts with the noble goal that men will act responsibly even if the fruits of their labor are taken away from them, since they know its for the 'common good'. But many men don't think this. If their pay is reduced, they'll do less work rather than work harder for less money. Selfish it might be , but men are self-interested. Both systems, if taken to their ultimate ends, end up with bad results. Utopian ideals don't work, ever. If given a choice, I'll chose a more liberty oriented approach. Capitalism has sharp edges, yes. But if the system is fair, it allows anyone to succeed. Just look at all the folks that have been successful in this country. All races, all creeds. For all its supposed evil, capitalism has indeed made everyone's life better (even the poor in the US look wealthy to those from real grinding poverty like you see in Africa).

The list is endless but recently you may have heard of Ted Cruz? His professor at Harvard Law said he was among the brightest he'd ever had in 50 years.

snakeinthegrass20. If the list is endless, you should be able to come up with a quick dozen or so intelligent, decent people who like Atlas Shrugged. Bring it on. Since when is Ted Cruz considered decent? How is Ted Cruz "brilliant" just because one person says so? His association with the Fox News Tea Party shows how illogical and uninformed his thinking is. People like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are considered brilliant by a strong majority of leading intellectuals. They are also decent.

JEFF9K There is a Wikipedia list: 100 prominent people influenced by Ayn Rand. Ted Cruz, a Harvard Law grad. Top of his class, praised by the most famous law professor in the world- A. Dershowitz and had a prestigious career of his own. This doesn't mean he must always be right, it does mean he isn't 'illogical and uniformed'. The TEA Party is about freedom, nothing more, nothing less. Krugman's star is fading, google it, economists are turning their back on him for his incorrect predictions and arrogant rationalisations.

Of course not. The book has been read by millions, and while one would have trouble proving the numbers, odds are a good chunk of them liked the book. Statistically, with a few exceptions perhaps, all of them must be stupid and/or crazy and/or evil. The logical proof of this is simple: they disagree with you. All of the people who liked the book have the same beliefs agreeing with everything Rand believed. Despite the fact that that last sentence is very untrue and Capitalism; good is the only thing the various people who like the book would agree on. Also the book was about a bunch of crooked and/or inept crony-capitalist businessmen and government buearocrats bringing about an economic collapse. How could you get any more unrealistic?

JEFF9K "People like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are considered brilliant by a strong majority of leading intellectuals." You've just committed 2 of the common fallacies: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority), and Argumentum ad Numerum (appeal to numbers of people). "They are also decent." By what objective standard are they "decent?"