Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead

Atlas

8 (21.6%)

Fountain

15 (40.5%)

Either

8 (21.6%)

Neither

6 (16.2%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

The Fountainhead focuses on Individualism and personal autonomy.  Atlas Shrugged focuses more on the stupidity of government.

[Bill Brasky]

IĀ’m actually rather scared by how much IĀ’m agreeing with Gandhi at this point

Cyro 6:42

And the Gandhi spoke, saying "Blessed are the agreeable, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; their followers shall number the stars in the sky, and all shall marvel in the truth of the Lord God Brasky."

  Oh, Brasky. My sides hurt.Ā 

 

Agree with logic and stick some in your pocket; it's plentiful among the chosen ones and rare among the heathens.  Its a magic coin you can spend forever and never be without.  Give it to those who may use it wisely, it shall be returned when it bears fruit, and we shall all prosper among its bounty. 

[AlexLibman]

I strongly believe that Ayn Rand's works should be read in the order they were written, except high school students might appreciate Anthem and a non-fiction intro on Objectivism as an appetizer before We The Living.  The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are not an easy read, though watching the movie or listening to an abridged book on tape is infinitely better than skipping them altogether.  Try that first, and maybe the books will go easier 3-5 years after that.  Libertarianism has a 20,000-page initiation ceremony, and Ayn Rand is a big part of it.   

BTW, I'm still seeding the audio books mentioned in the Libertarian Literature thread, but I only have one computer at the moment, and I need to run a full-tunnel VPN some of the time.  So if you don't get them right away, please wait a while.

[gandhi2]

Libertarianism has a 20,000-page initiation ceremony, and Ayn Rand is a big part of it.

I guess I missed this part of the hazing.  I've never been a frat boy, really.

Whatever happened to simply agreeing to the non-aggression doctrine?  Does this make me merely a journeyman Libertarian?  Or worse?  A novice?  An apprentice?  Please, masters, grant me enlightenment.  What do I have to read to graduate?

[John Shaw]

Libertarianism has a 20,000-page initiation ceremony, and Ayn Rand is a big part of it.

I guess I missed this part of the hazing.  I've never been a frat boy, really.

Whatever happened to simply agreeing to the non-aggression doctrine?  Does this make me merely a journeyman Libertarian?  Or worse?  A novice?  An apprentice?  Please, masters, grant me enlightenment.  What do I have to read to graduate?

It makes you a laymen Libertarian, who agrees with the tenants, but isn't interested in doing the homework. Which is fine. Just expect some people to hold it against you when you're entering a debate. For many libertarians, Objectivists in particular, the practice of politics is the end result of a heck of a lot more that the non-aggression principle. What leads up to a political view is just as important as the view itself.

Things that happen before politics in matter of importance:
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics

So some people may disregard your comments if you've plead ignorance of some of those fundamentals that preclude political theory.

I already know your views in Rand and Objectivism, so let's not drag that into it, but there are a lot of people who've done tons of homework and are willing to quickly dismiss those who haven't. This is in no way a criticism of you.

And yes, I'm a 95% Objectivist. (I can't seem to give up my agnosticism.)

[Evil Muppet]

I would say that I am hardly a novice or layman libertarian and while I have read Ayn Rand, I do not hold her to be a major influence upon my thinking.  I myself have done quite a bit of homework and dismiss Rand and Objectivism.   

[John Shaw]

I would say that I am hardly a novice or layman libertarian and while I have read Ayn Rand, I do not hold her to be a major influence upon my thinking.  I myself have done quite a bit of homework and dismiss Rand and Objectivism.   

Then I suppose my post wasn't about you then, huh?

You don't have to like Ayn Rand to be a Libertarian.

Rand didn't particularly like Libertarians herself. So what? The woman is dead.

The point was about reading a lot of crap to be considered "The real deal" as Ghandi was talking about. And he's right. I was just pointing out that some people are still gonna dismiss him, just because he hasn't read books x,y, and z. That's just the way Libertarians (And other intellectuals) act sometimes.


Added later: It's like the difference between Second Amendment defenders and gun enthusiasts. The enthusiasts are gonna get all high and mighty about the technical details, and will look down thier noses at the second amendment defenders who aren't as versed on details like the loose screw problem on the Smith and Wesson 645, or Glocks exploding (Or NOT exploding) and on and on. Get into and argument with a geek, and expect to be speaking to a geek.

[gandhi2]

Things that happen before politics in matter of importance:
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics

Ok, I can handle that.  This is where I'd rather spend most of my time studying anyways.

So some people may disregard your comments if you've plead ignorance of some of those fundamentals that preclude political theory.

This I can't handle, and it's why I'm bitter.  It's the implicit assumption that a layperson cannot have a sufficient understanding of truth, or that two ideologies which share a common border cannot  be equally valid intellectually.  The same thing as I've gotten perturbed at BenTucker for..."Can't we just talk about theory, instead of bringing up the dissertations of Heisenberg and Schroedinger all the time?"  If you have the same foundation, based upon principle rather than literature, what does it matter whether I call myself libertarian or not?   I've accepted some of the preceding principles, and because libertarianism seems really close to what I believe, it's where I'll spend most my time.  I have the same issue with organized religion...my philosophy may mirror some of the same principles as their religious teachings, but that doesn't mean that the inherent truth in those principles is less because I don't attend church or pay a tithe.  This level of piety is very disrespectful, very patronizing, and very destructive to rational debate.

there are a lot of people who've done tons of homework and are willing to quickly dismiss those who haven't.

That's cool.  More wisdom to them.  But that's no reason to pick at nits, nor knock heads.  Whether two people can agree on everything or just one thing...we are all adults, and debate should be able to go forward.  There is no reason why anybody should be disregarding the opinion of another based on ignorance in a tangental topic, right from the get-go.  If somebody has some knowledge, shouldn't it be offered, rather than preached?  If it is important to the matter at hand, then there is the small chance that that person will have a change of heart based on that information that he voluntarily accepted.  To me, this seems like it would only benefit the cause of spreading liberty.

[gandhi2]

The point was about reading a lot of crap to be considered "The real deal" as Ghandi was talking about. And he's right. I was just pointing out that some people are still gonna dismiss him, just because he hasn't read books x,y, and z. That's just the way Libertarians (And other intellectuals) act sometimes.

Brevity is one skill I have yet to master.  Thank you.

[John Shaw]

I'm 100% on your side, Ghandi, even though I'm a mean old Randroid. Way too many objectivists have tolerance problems. There are a few fun loving Objectivists out there, but I know we're hard to find.

Dogma is a dangerous thing, wherever you find it. You can avoid dogma and still be uncompromising as well.

I try to remember the most important thing about being a freedom lover:

I'd rather have any one of you guys at my back if the shit hit the fan, than some moron who doesn't know or care about freedom.

Generally speaking, we're the good guys here. All of us. Bickering aside, we need to remember that. 

[John Shaw]

Excepting Bendover... Er,Tucker. He's a commie.

[mikehz]

Right now, the movement is largely concentrated among intellectuals, but is starting to move into the mainstream. The day will come when most people who consider themselves "libertarians" won't bother to read much about it, any more than most conservatives or liberals bother studying much about those concepts. The average libertarian will just say, "It's wrong to order people to do what they don't want to, isn't it? I mean, that's just the way it IS. I don't really have to read all those pointy-headed books, do I?"

[John Shaw]

Right now, the movement is largely concentrated among intellectuals, but is starting to move into the mainstream. The day will come when most people who consider themselves "libertarians" won't bother to read much about it, any more than most conservatives or liberals bother studying much about those concepts. The average libertarian will just say, "It's wrong to order people to do what they don't want to, isn't it? I mean, that's just the way it IS. I don't really have to read all those pointy-headed books, do I?"

Yup, until the socialists infiltrate*** and take over, just like with the democrats and republicans. Then we'll be right back to where we are now. The intellectuals are an important defense against that sort of nonsense.

Non-intellectuals are important, too. They can actually get off their asses and take action, with greater effect than intellectuals.


***It's already happening, just look at BenTucker and people like him, vocally embracing the term "Libertarian" and then disputing foundational tenants.

[mbd]

Yup, until the socialists infiltrate*** and take over, just like with the democrats and republicans. Then we'll be right back to where we are now. The intellectuals are an important defense against that sort of nonsense.

Non-intellectuals are important, too. They can actually get off their asses and take action, with greater effect than intellectuals.


***It's already happening, just look at BenTucker and people like him, vocally embracing the term "Libertarian" and then disputing foundational tenants.

They won't take over. There's no such thing as "Democratism" or "Republicanism". They are not philosophies. Libertarianism is. Socialism was a movement, as libertarianism is. The parties just picked up on it.

[mikehz]

In any case, the socialists are already the dominant movement. But, socialism has proven itself a dismal failure. As time goes on, the fact that it can't deliver the goods becomes apparent to even the dullest citizens. Inevitable, those countries that embrace freedom grow more prosperous, while those that don't will fall behind.