I'm surprised. I've honestly never heard anyone say that before.

I would be interested to know where you went to school. Were you in the AP/smart kid classes, or was that required reading for every kid who went there?

Los Angeles suburbs. I was in AP classes, but really cant remember if it was for all kids or not.

Why not? Head in the sand on this book or just not a keen reader?

Have to admit, between fatherhood, work, and other hobbies, I haven't read a good book in years. Used to be a voracious reader. Feel kinda crappy about it.

It would seem from many of the posts here that this book is way above my comprehension level. Plus my docket is full...finishing Dereliction of Duty, working through the USMC Small Wars Manual, then I'm writing a thesis for one possible solution to winning in Iraq, then I'm on to Poverty.

Reading 2-3 hours per night, I've gotten nothing done on the E except to refresh my polished decklid grill. For many people, spray paint should never be an option.

Read both "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" several times. Anthem too, but only once.

I'd really like to find both in original hard back print.

The underpinnings of this are Western rather than Conservative or Liberal. In the money speech alone, for instance, you find very nearly direct quotes from the speeches and writings of both Edmund Burke (founder of English Conservativism) and Thomas Macaulay (Founder of English Liberalism), and not a small amount of Adam Smith.

This is a period piece, much as Steinbeck was of the 30's. We think of the 1950's as the pinnacle of American business. But even then, cracks were beginning to show which would explode in the 60's and bring things down in the 70's. Rand takes things a bit far in this book and (esp) that money speech - and the writing is not first rate. But it was an important message to people 50 years ago because capitalism was being changed by legitimized unions, tighter laws, etc. 50 years ago salary differences between rich and poor were narrowing, blue collar workers had decent wages, and benefits were growing by leaps and bounds. People with a little imagination could see that if all this went on, eventually benefits would become too generous, laws would get too stringent, and the system would collapse (1970's).

Read Rand with an open mind rather than an axe to grind. She is not a great or even good writer. But her message resonated and had impact 50 years ago, just as Silent Spring resonated and had impact 40 years ago. Just as Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was important in the 70's. Just as Zero Sum Game is important to understanding the 80's.

I don't say these books are good or bad. But they are great shorthand for their eras. And their rise is easy enough to predict in retrospect.

Rand/50's: Depression/WWII ends, capitalism takes off. Lower classes & minorities want rights and access to $$$ - someone has to remind people of capitalism's value.....

Carson/60's: Capitalism takes off, you can no longer see Mt. Palomar from LA - someone reminds people that the environment is important.

Zen/70's:Everything falls apart, right vs. left takes off and intensifies - someone reminds people of "quality".

Zero/80's: Economy is a mess, tax rates on the rich actually ARE too high - et cetera, et cetera, et cetera......

Rand isn't so much "right" as right for the times. Just like some presidents are right for their times. Think of Kennedy and Nixon and Reagan - and even Bush II and Clinton....

Kennedy - hopeful, , bright, young - what could be better for the early 60's?
Nixon - bright but petty and parnoid - what could be better for the early 70's?
Reagan - witty, strong, upbeat and happy - what could be better for the 80's?
Clinton - bright but lazy and puffed up with a need for love....
Bush II - average and certain and angry and with something to prove....

Famous books are right for their times, just as famous presidents are right for theirs. But right does not equal great.

Great means true throughout the ages. Rand doesn't belong on the list of Great Books any more than Rachel Carson does. But she is important to understanding an era....

Read books when you can. There are plenty of good ones out there. Books like those by Rand give you an ability to transport yourself to a different era, and understand the opinions of your elders more easily by seeing what they felt & suffered. You don't have to agree with them now. But it is nice to understand.....After all, many modern Democrats admit the value of capitalism; and many modern Republicans admit the limitations of it. And understanding is of value......

Rand and Atlas are not perfect - but should definitely be read in late high school or college.

BTW - I seem to remember a Trivial pursuit question - something to the effect of: What book do Ronald Regan, Alan Greenspan and Mikael Gorbachev all claim to have in their offices?

In my best Jim Rome voice: "Rack it".

Great post (all of it, not just the snip above). I do believe we forget to account for the context of time. I haven't seen a corduroy jacket in 20 years, but I sure loved mine.

Rand is worth the time simply because of her stance against moral relativism. There is such a thing as good and evil.

Another indication of intellectual elitism. I'm not surprised that Rand fans might conclude that you have to be smart in order to grok her deep message. Since after all, there are people who dismiss much of her hypotheses and all of her conclusion. Those would be the dumb people, right?

Let's posit another brilliant explanation of where economic and social ferocity might be coming from. As a juxtapostion. For most of human history, man has been distracted by pesky details like food and not getting killed by each other, animals, weather, etc. Those things were a full time job. Later, and recently, humans have carved out some leisure time, and some security. Releasing them to engage in intellectual and creative pursuits. Perhaps the prime example is Ancient Greece. The "slaves" ran Athens, and the "Citizens" had all day to lounge around, give each other BJ's and discuss philosophy. And medicine. And physics. The result was an explosion of creativity and understanding and social and economic progress.

Same today. We are safe and secure. Food is everywhere. As a consequence, progress is breathtaking. In spite of whatever whining, lamentful, depressing observations you guys are making, economic and social progress on Planet Earth, and especially America, are breathtaking.

You guys hate social programs that protect people and take care of them. You say that just makes humans lazy. Pressure to perform is what you recommend. Necessity is the mother of Invention. Take away the safety net, and folks will become productive. Nevermind that this position flies in the face of what we know about the development of social and economic progress throughout human history. Nevermind that it is considered a proven fact that leisure and security that breed progress. Socialism.

Discuss.

BTW, I have no problem with Rand as a writer about topics like moral relativism and the bit of illumination she provided, at that specific time, in discussions about social and economic progress. The problem I have is the deification of Rand as though she has come up with a new philosophical paradigm that had been undiscovered until she came along. She's a gnat, in the greater scheme of philosophical thinking. But again, she's a Siren singing a Song of the Sirens for certain people who just glom onto notions like individual intellectual supremacy and heroism.

Supe,
I don't have a problem with providing a safety net for the people who really need it. Rand's Siren call, as you so nicely put it, is to expose the true looters and moochers in society. She accomplishes this with devastating effectiveness.

Is it just Atlas Shrugged you haven't read, you have read other Rand books?

I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I've discussed Rand with a number of starry-eyed brilliant young geniuses. Again, she offers a message that appears to be like mashed potatoes to starving people. And......there is enough evidence to make her message digestible. Easily digestible, if you really WANT her conclusions to be true. We know for example that 80% of people are doing 20% of the work. And that 20% of people are doing the remaining 80% of work. Yes, the best and brightest and most energetic are "carrying" everyone else.

But......it's a LOOOOONG way from there to the conclusion that 80% of people are trash. Dead weight. That is at onvce mean-spirited, arrogant and untrue.

I don't deify Rand...but calling her a gnat is somewhat telling. I don't glom onto notions anymore than I dismiss them out of hand. You may want to try it.;)

I'm not one of those guys whose Internet personality is different from their regular personality (Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde), but I guess I do speak more forcefully here than elsewhere. I've been thinking about that. I sort of "let loose" here. Knowing it does not help my cred. Hmmmm.....

But yeah, I'm not a black-and-white person. I'm actually a various-shades-of-grey person. Rand has some legitimate contributions. I just get tired of hearing guys report that most of humanity is useless and should be nuked while the Heros (them included, I assume) should be free from paying taxes.

Here's another clue, and I've had this conversation quite a few times including as recently as yesterday: I'm fairly handsome (I'm told), fairly intelligent, warm personality, charitable, educated, etc. Comfortable, etc. Respected (outside this Forum). Athletic. Terrific genes. Two main elements combine to form our experiences and personalities and fortunes. The stuff we're given, as a gift.......and the stuff we do with that. I think my good fortune in so many important areas are all due to luck. I give myself no credit. Environment and plain ol' luck are responsible for my enviable fortunes. Randism helps people feel proud of themselves vis-a-vis other people. I've got a problem with arrogant people.

[cough] [cough] :D

Your thoughts are completely dichotomous to my way of thinking...it is a given that we inherit certain traits, both helpful and harmful. How we deal with the hand we are dealt makes all the difference. Those are the two main elements, not luck, not environment.

My fortune is treasure to some, failure to others. I decide which in my life. Humbly.

Supe, you have a corrupt interpretation of Rand's writings.
You seem to be trying to convince yourself that she is wrong.

LOL