

Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?ex=1347508800&en=8fc42c2f2603a791&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

======
mikesabat
I think that every aspiring entrepreneur should buy and try to read the
Fountainhead. Howard Roark (main character) is the prototypical entrepreneur
fighting to get his ideas to a world that needs them.

It works intellectually, but it is best used for inspiration. How often do you
find a piece of literature for $12 that MAY change your life.

------
SwellJoe
All the Ayn Rand you'll ever need is in Anthem. Much shorter than Atlas
Shrugged, and better literature to boot.

I'm a long-time fan, after finding one of her books at a flea market when I
was a kid (bought it coincidentally at the same time as Walden Two, a
socialist manifesto by B.F. Skinner...one was delightfully rational and rang
true while the other's greatest feat of intellectual brilliance was the use of
glass dinner plates so you don't have to flip them when washing them to know
that both sides are clean), but I'll never re-read the John Galt speech. Atlas
was just too long. Ayn clearly never heard of DRY (or assumed her readers were
too stupid to understand it the first several times she said it).

~~~
rrival
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are magnificent. To suggest that anyone
-not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not
experience great, life-changing literature. Her objectivist philosophy may be
a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing
I'd proposed that others -skip- these books.

~~~
paul
"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and
magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last
word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading
again." -- police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998)

I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost
interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make it my religion.

The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't
rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And
I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)

~~~
SwellJoe
"The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't
rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And
I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)"

This one made me laugh a little. What did people want from gmail, Paul?
Folders, right? Lots of good folder-related features. Did you give it to them?
Nope. You made search work right, threaded the conversations, and to hell with
what people wanted. You gave'em what they didn't know they wanted (but what
was right). And you were right to do so.

Sure, now you have labels, which are just like folders only not called
folders, but I'm pretty sure you weren't around for that (or at least you
didn't push for labels if you were around for it).

~~~
paul
Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for,
but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both
extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time.
I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :)

Gmail definitely contains some compromises, and I'm ok with that. I'd rather
have a good product with millions of users than a "perfect" product with zero
users (not that perfection is possible anyway).

~~~
SwellJoe
"Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for,
but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both
extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time.
I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :)"

I agree, and I know you're not as arrogant as a Rand hero. Your post just made
me laugh. ;-)

But I'm glad you clarified, because the "I know what's best" sentence could
very well be the best thing ever said on News.YC.

------
patrickg-zill
One need only look at the current mess of Zimbabwe, where all the productive
people both black and white, were driven out or killed, to see "John Galt" in
action.

~~~
jrmurad
Care to explain? It is my understanding that they are being driven out and
killed by armed thugs. I'm not sure what percentage of said thugs are
government agents but I know it's not 0. How is this John Galt (who desires a
world free of the aggressive initiation of force) "in action"?

~~~
uuilly
Mr. Mugabe nationalized all farms in Zimbabwe. There were many British Empire
leftovers (white guys) running farms quite successfully. Zimbabwe was actually
one of the rare African hopes pre Mugabe. Many said it would be the "bread
basket" of Africa the way Ukraine is to Europe and Kansas is to the US. Mugabe
siezed all "white owned" land and had native Zimbabweans run the farms.
Predictably this all went to shit and their inflation rate now hovers between
6,000% and 10,000%. No exageration. When nobody could run the farms he
actually buldozed tenemants and told the inhabitants to go work on the farms.
Very little edible food has materialized.

The way this relates to Ayn Rand is that in all her stories the captains of
industry are pervceived as evil profit mongers by the masses. The masses
evantually rise up and take back what's "theirs" and the entire economy grinds
to a halt. This is what Rand witnessed in the Russian Revolution and this is
exactly what is happening in Zimbabwe today.

~~~
jrmurad
Thanks for clarifying... I read the parent as claiming that the looters (who
you refer to as the "masses") are "John Galt in action". It makes more sense
to say that the productive farmers picking up and leaving ("striking") would
be John Galt in action. However, I think they were generally forced out by the
thugs rather than (more Galt-like) voluntarily abandoning their industries.

------
shawndrost
Is Ayn saying that the individual is more important than the collective, or
that the best route to collective improvement is through selfishness? I
suspect it's the latter, but Ayn and her followers frame the debate so
combatively that it's hard to be sure. I see this confusion rearing its head
throughout this page.

(I read the first 100 pages of Atlas Shrugged, and got sick of it. I thought
it was uninteresting as a novel and inefficient and not rigorous as a
treatise. This part of the novel seemed to intentionally perpetuate my
confusion: the conflict, as I recall, was between truly selfish people and
collectivists that were too incompetent to see when the selfish people were
doing collective good. Why conflate incompetence and collectivism?)

~~~
gwenhwyfaer
In any case, competition - and therefore the market - is necessarily a
collective endeavour. You can't come second in a race with only one
participant (well, except for some snobbish cake competitions in tiny English
parishes).

------
brennannovak
I have not read any Ayn Rand but I will immediately. I can not help but think
of our current situation with our President and how the public views him. As I
grow and experience more, being a business owner, etc... It seems that no
matter how much one human knows or thinks they know- there is almost always
another human who knows something else and that something else just might be
what the first person needs to know.

------
brianmckenzie
Someone whose philosophy can be summed up in a Depeche Mode song is probably
not the brightest light in the history of western civilization.

~~~
gibsonf1
Or could it be, in being able to essentialize a message in elevator-pitch
fashion, that a person actually really knows what they're talking about?

~~~
davidw
Would that John Galt had been able to deliver an elevator pitch, rather than a
90 page rant:-)

~~~
gwenhwyfaer
Would that Ayn Rand had gone into banking rather than writing...

------
shadowplay
Might want to get out the pesticide before the Ayn Rand-ers pull a Ron Paul-
ing of YC News.

