Comments on: Rand and Rossbott

By: dr00

dr00 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:01:19 +0000

I thought I’d click through and read some comments on this article out of interest, which I don’t normally do. That was a mistake… why is everyone so obsessed with things Rand supposedly said or did in her personal life? What happened to scepticism? This stuff about Rand forcing people to smoke and forcing them to divorce their religious wives goes DIRECTLY against everything she ever stood for and yet you guys just gobble it up without question. Either read her effin books yourselves and make up your own mind or go read New Idea for the latest meaningless gossip on celebrities, at least their BS isn’t 50 years old.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything she stood for but she has done a lot of good for the cause of freedom. I see the Austrian school as more dealing with the economics of free markets whereas Rand dealt with the philosophy and morality of freedom. They’re not competitors but could be complimentary.

One reason Rand probably had a problem with the Austrian school (I think) is her position was that capitalism was the only moral philosophy and that people who argued for capitalism on the basis that it “works out better for everyone” were as bad as or worse than socialists. Austrian economics could be seen as trying to justify capitalism on the basis that “everyone is better off.”

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:03:04 +0000

I can’t say that anyone one book (certainly not a novel) is that important that it must be read.
.
Well mostly yes. Except The Long Good-Bye. That must be read. Go and read it. Now!

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:30:02 +0000

Mises Anti-capitalist sentiment covers the same gound very well.

Is it that important? – probably not. I can’t say that anyone one book (certainly not a novel) is that important that it must be read.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:16:30 +0000

Train crash as metaphor. Is Ayn Rand like Tom Wolfe. Channelling Zola?. . Zola, there was a writer.

By: Steve Edney

Steve Edney — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:05:24 +0000

I agree that its useful to read important books regardless of whether you agree with them, but is it really that important a book?

Sure a lot of people have read it, but from what I can tell (not having read it) other people (Hayek etc) have covered the material in a more reasonable fashion.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:43:03 +0000

Steve – setting Rand herself aside, Atlas Shrugged is an important book. I don’t always agree with important books, but reading them is useful.

By: Steve Edney

Steve Edney — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:22:42 +0000

People are allowed to be wrong, Steve… and being wrong on one thing doesn’t make you wrong everywhere.

Yes, true but I am not concerned that they were wrong about cigarette smoking. That’s being wrong and I can accept that.

Denoucing individuals for making a free choice in not smoking however doesn’t strike you incredibly crazy and cultish? May as well be marxists or scientoligists.

There is a whole world of good writing by people that I will probably not get time to read why would waste time reading cultist potboilers?

By: rog

rog — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:54:07 +0000

was/is

By: rog

rog — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:53:42 +0000

Well if superficial thinkers like myself dont get Rand its no wonder her philosophy was a failure

By: Michael Sutcliffe

Michael Sutcliffe — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:32:10 +0000

In light of the GFC, one could imagine an amusing re-write of Rand’s tripe, wherein bankers and financiers ‘go Galt’, to the betterment of everybody left behind…

That’s called the ‘fantasy’ genre of fiction! I can see why THR likes it