LDS Freedom Forum

Have any of you read the book? What are your thoughts?

That it was long and repeated itself a lot - the basic philosophy I liked but Rand was a poor writer

Original_Intent wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:01 pm That it was long and repeated itself a lot - the basic philosophy I liked but Rand was a poor writer

Agreed. The philosophy was thought provoking though. I found it an interesting exercise in having a well thought philosophy presented that you could see many of the points yet feel this can't be right and trying to counter it.

One of my favorite fiction books. I thought the story was mostly great. (I listened to the audio book)

B. wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:10 pm One of my favorite fiction books. I thought the story was mostly great. (I listened to the audio book)

I saw it listed very highly on a poll of the ten most influential books people had read so I gave it a read. If I remember right it was a Readers Digest Poll. The bible was number 1, Atlas Shrugged was number 2 and the Book of Mormon was in the top 10.

Because of its philosophy I thought it would have a great following on this forum. Basically she takes capitalism and free market economy to its extreme. It poses the thought of what would happen if the truly great men and women that really runs this world on their own power and initiative were to go on strike and let lesser men with their socialistic type beliefs try to run things.

I've read it, and watched the 3-part movie series, as well (the movies were more entertaining than the book, IMO, which I agree, was too long and repetitive). I think the story shows several great points, like this -

"The “strike of the mind” led by John Galt demonstrates this central theme of the novel. When the best creative minds are systematically removed from the world, their importance is laid bare. Without the great thinkers, society spirals quickly downward. The economy collapses, and irrational looters seize power."

Which makes me think of the future fleeing to Zion, when the faithful will be removed from the world as it collapses into chaos - not an exact analogy, but I couldn't help but notice the similarities.

And this -

"Going Galt" doesn't simply mean getting angry. That would be "Going Postal." It means having righteous indignation at the injustice of a political system that bails out individuals and institutions for irresponsible behavior and at the expense of those like you who prosper through hard work and personal responsibly."

Which is straight-up the world/society we currently live in.

Anyway, the book is definitely worth reading, IMO.

hadn't thought about the analogy, though imperfect, to the 'call out'. Thought provoking.

I liked the book, but it's got some flaws. One: it's way too repetitive. She makes a point very well, but then keeps hammering on it until you're ready to just skip 10 or 70 pages just to get on with the story. It also has a philosophy against religion and God that I think is harmful, but her opinion is reasoned.

And I think it's telling that the only way she could make the "going Galt" concept work in the story was by creating a fictional way for the characters to remove themselves from society and create their own private place to establish a true capitalistic economy. In real life, we don't get that kind of luxury. The best we actually could hope for is to be a Dagny Taggart, but go down with the ship.

h_p wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 4:13 pm I liked the book, but it's got some flaws. One: it's way too repetitive. She makes a point very well, but then keeps hammering on it until you're ready to just skip 10 or 70 pages just to get on with the story. It also has a philosophy against religion and God that I think is harmful, but her opinion is reasoned.

And I think it's telling that the only way she could make the "going Galt" concept work in the story was by creating a fictional way for the characters to remove themselves from society and create their own private place to establish a true capitalistic economy. In real life, we don't get that kind of luxury. The best we actually could hope for is to be a Dagny Taggart, but go down with the ship.

Yes her extreme position to the point of being anti religion is troublesome. In fact that brings up my other main concern. How should we respond to the non-atlases. We need to have charity. I would counter her view with something more akin to Bush's compassionate conservatism. It needs to be a careful balance.

justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 4:26 pm Yes her extreme position to the point of being anti religion is troublesome. In fact that brings up my other main concern. How should we respond to the non-atlases. We need to have charity. I would counter her view with something more akin to Bush's compassionate conservatism. It needs to be a careful balance.

I take it to mean that forced charity is not charity. I've heard many times that taxation for purposes of wealth redistribution is considered "charitable" and being against that is selfish. I hear this from people within the church, too. But no benefit is gained on the part of the "giver" if their money is taken from them by force.

What people have largely forgotten is that government is force. Period. Anything a government does is backed up by a threat of violence, either explicitly or implied.

A great example of this was Eric Garner, who was killed by police for being non-compliant while they were enforcing a cigarette tax.

justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 4:26 pm

h_p wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 4:13 pm I liked the book, but it's got some flaws. One: it's way too repetitive. She makes a point very well, but then keeps hammering on it until you're ready to just skip 10 or 70 pages just to get on with the story. It also has a philosophy against religion and God that I think is harmful, but her opinion is reasoned.

And I think it's telling that the only way she could make the "going Galt" concept work in the story was by creating a fictional way for the characters to remove themselves from society and create their own private place to establish a true capitalistic economy. In real life, we don't get that kind of luxury. The best we actually could hope for is to be a Dagny Taggart, but go down with the ship.

Yes her extreme position to the point of being anti religion is troublesome. In fact that brings up my other main concern. How should we respond to the non-atlases. We need to have charity. I would counter her view with something more akin to Bush's compassionate conservatism. It needs to be a careful balance.

What we have currently isn't charity, though - it's taking by force. Worlds of difference and is damaging to both the giver and the receiver.

Never mistake government welfare as being charitable.

h_p wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 4:59 pm

justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 4:26 pm Yes her extreme position to the point of being anti religion is troublesome. In fact that brings up my other main concern. How should we respond to the non-atlases. We need to have charity. I would counter her view with something more akin to Bush's compassionate conservatism. It needs to be a careful balance.

I take it to mean that forced charity is not charity. I've heard many times that taxation for purposes of wealth redistribution is considered "charitable" and being against that is selfish. I hear this from people within the church, too. But no benefit is gained on the part of the "giver" if their money is taken from them by force.

What people have largely forgotten is that government is force. Period. Anything a government does is backed up by a threat of violence, either explicitly or implied.

A great example of this was Eric Garner, who was killed by police for being non-compliant while they were enforcing a cigarette tax.

An interesting related point is the billionaires in France donating large sums for the rebuilding of Notre Dame and the anger of the yellow jacket protesters that they will receive a tax benefit for it.

I got through part of Fountainhead, but was really put off by her anti-altruistic/sacrifice ethic. It was a time when I was in the middle of year-and-a-half effort to help someone in dire need.

Many of her other ideas appeal to me. But her atheism, anti-spiritual/religious stance coupled with her antipathy toward altruistic behavior took her off my 'goto' list.

Probably the most 'spiritual' and amazing experiences I've had, followed on the heels of the altruistic endeavor I mentioned.

So my basic take, which seems to be the consensus here, is that some of the basic ideas are good but they are taken to an extreme. (and the writing is not perfect literature)

justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 5:27 pm So my basic take, which seems to be the consensus here, is that some of the basic ideas are good but they are taken to an extreme. (and the writing is not perfect literature)

. . . or are just plain wrong.

justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:15 pm Have any of you read the book? What are your thoughts?

Great book and helped open my eyes to how corrupt and stupid our world governments are.

Also we need Rearden Steel

And I say....

Great concepts on rugged individualism, short on spirituality, would benefit many if there was a Readers Digest version.

It is one of my all-time favorite books. It was prophetic. It hit on so many different subjects and emotions. The writing was phenomenal and the voice actor blew it out of the water. I listened to the audiobook as well.

I didn't like everything, but my overall rememberance is that it changed my life for the better. Gave me a better outlook on wealth, on feeling like I am owed things and that rich people should be obligated to give to those who have less.

The only thing I know about Atlas Shrugged is the catch phrase "Who is John Galt?"

And I only know that because it was a cheat code for one of my favorite video games.

h_p wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 4:13 pm I liked the book, but it's got some flaws. One: it's way too repetitive. She makes a point very well, but then keeps hammering on it until you're ready to just skip 10 or 70 pages just to get on with the story. It also has a philosophy against religion and God that I think is harmful, but her opinion is reasoned.

And I think it's telling that the only way she could make the "going Galt" concept work in the story was by creating a fictional way for the characters to remove themselves from society and create their own private place to establish a true capitalistic economy. In real life, we don't get that kind of luxury. The best we actually could hope for is to be a Dagny Taggart, but go down with the ship.

I think that it could work in a different way though. I, at time, think it's important to stay and become the base of the pyramid propping up the NWO so they become completely dependent, before you go Galt, so to speak. It would crumble so fast that you would not need to establish much of an alternate society.