First as a movie I can sum it up in two words: Kinda Cheesy. The acting is wooden and the main character is a sort of Mary Sue, named Dagny. The plot is more like a water cooler joke than a plot twist. And the source material is obviously old because it doesn't seem to recognize innovations of the past fifty something years. Basically all I liked was the cinematography.
As a darling of conservative literature, in fact, a bible to some. I get it. There is nothing elusive about the point Atlas Shrugged is pretty clear. If you know a little bit about Rand it is more extreme than you might think. Rand believes in the virtue of selfishness. There is some sense to this, it must be the prerogative of a business to make money. Steve Jobs wanted to have factories in the US but he couldn't figure out how to make money doing it.
Where I branch from conservatives is the counterpoint to the film. The villian of the movie is government regulation that attempts to make everything "fair". But it's just as easy to walk away with the lesson that it is corporate influence of government which is evil, because all the regulations that strangle these companies are passed because of one company trying to snuff out it's competition instead of innovating.
Ayn Rand is a guilty pleasure for many of her fans. The philosophy that rich people are our "heroes" because they are ruthless is a hard one to be sympathetic with because in arguing that everyone at the top is smarter and works harder there is a heavy implication that those who have not succeeded are lazy and stupid. I haven't read the book so I don't know how heavily it's implied, but there's more.
Social Conservatives would probably not be big fans of Atlas Shrugged as a philosophy lesson. A married man having an affair is something that happens in both literature and life. But when it happens in Atlas Shrugged it is Rand's ham handed philosophy at work. The virtue of selfishness extends even to interpersonal relationships in Rand's eyes and an affair is perfectly legitimate (Unless it's Rand's lover with a younger prettier woman from what I understand).
And finally history is against Atlas Shrugged. Published in 1957 Atlas Shrugged has had the problem of technology surpassing it. The plot revolves around a metal that is ten times lighter and stronger than steel. We have those metals now and they were developed by the government that Rand's followers constantly put down. As I've said before, most of the innovations our economy are based on came from tax payer money.
It isn't that Rand fails as a philosopher, she's given us an interesting perspective on the world, and that is all we should expect of her. The problem is when philosophers gain acolytes, who take the philosophy too literally. Yes there are pragmatic benefits to being selfish. But there are also consequences. That is why the government is supposed to administer justice. So business people can push the envelope and Feds can reign them in. The problem we face now is that the people haven't reigned in the government. Selfishness of the government is tyranny.
Where I branch from conservatives is the counterpoint to the film. The villian of the movie is government regulation that attempts to make everything "fair". But it's just as easy to walk away with the lesson that it is corporate influence of government which is evil, because all the regulations that strangle these companies are passed because of one company trying to snuff out it's competition instead of innovating.
Ayn Rand is a guilty pleasure for many of her fans. The philosophy that rich people are our "heroes" because they are ruthless is a hard one to be sympathetic with because in arguing that everyone at the top is smarter and works harder there is a heavy implication that those who have not succeeded are lazy and stupid. I haven't read the book so I don't know how heavily it's implied, but there's more.
Social Conservatives would probably not be big fans of Atlas Shrugged as a philosophy lesson. A married man having an affair is something that happens in both literature and life. But when it happens in Atlas Shrugged it is Rand's ham handed philosophy at work. The virtue of selfishness extends even to interpersonal relationships in Rand's eyes and an affair is perfectly legitimate (Unless it's Rand's lover with a younger prettier woman from what I understand).
And finally history is against Atlas Shrugged. Published in 1957 Atlas Shrugged has had the problem of technology surpassing it. The plot revolves around a metal that is ten times lighter and stronger than steel. We have those metals now and they were developed by the government that Rand's followers constantly put down. As I've said before, most of the innovations our economy are based on came from tax payer money.
It isn't that Rand fails as a philosopher, she's given us an interesting perspective on the world, and that is all we should expect of her. The problem is when philosophers gain acolytes, who take the philosophy too literally. Yes there are pragmatic benefits to being selfish. But there are also consequences. That is why the government is supposed to administer justice. So business people can push the envelope and Feds can reign them in. The problem we face now is that the people haven't reigned in the government. Selfishness of the government is tyranny.
There are a couple of criticisms I could say about the ethical egoism (the idea that humans can, and should, choose to be selfish) that is advocated by Ayn Rand, but let me say something about "Atlas Shrugged."
ReplyDeleteThe heroes in Rand's book are essentially ethically sound people, who do not have it as their goal to take advantage of their employees. But if you have an individual, who is not as ethically sound, then you will basically have what has been seen with Wal-Mart, and Rand's philosophy will suppport it.
That is a point I should have made. The reason for unions and government intervention is because companies can not be trusted on the honor system that workers and the public will be treated fairly or safely.
ReplyDeleteYou can't simply go else where when the cost cutting companies are buying out their competitors.
Pretty much. I can understand where one can be upset at too large a government, or too large a union, but to eliminate them completely is bordering on disaster. However, many of Rand's followers want to do things that are similar to this.
ReplyDeleteRight the real problem is bloated bureaucracy http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/labels.html
ReplyDelete