Holy Shit: They’re Making Atlas Shrugged Into A Movie

… Sounds like you didn't really understand, or bother to understand, Objectivism. Or Rand's theories of self potential. Then you decided to lash out all that anger into a scathing and, quite honestly, shitty blog post.

Hahaha. This is brilliant. I cannot fucking believe they made a movie based on such a bullshit novel. And the trailer is so boring, insipid, and undeniably stupid, that I honestly questioned whether it was a real trailer or not. Way to go hard on such a shitty novel and the shitty ideas behind it. I applaud you, Oliver.

God, this is the best ever. I freaking despise Ayn Rand.

If the movie is anything like the book then it will be 300 hours long and i will watch half an hour of it before leaving in disgust.
Good article!

I spent three months reading Atlas Shrugged last year. And before getting to the philosophies, my complaint with the book was the STORY ITSELF. It takes you 1000+ pages to write a story about industrial entrepreneurs striking against the government? I understand its your magnum opus, but in 1000+ pages I expect deep, well-thought out characters. What I ended up with were simple characters lacking depth that were simply pawns in a lengthy essay about objectivism and libertarianism.

The philosophies have merit (see: https://calvinaftercal.wordpre…/) but the world's greatest plot falters if it has one-dimensional characters.

Rape me.

1. I think this movie will suck for reasons completely apart from yours.
2. Fuck it, I like one dimensional characters. Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men – Awesome. John Mclaine in all the Die Hard movies – Awesome.

While I really like Ayn Rand's novels and can understand the points of Objectivism (although I'm not a Tea Partier by any means), I think this movie will really, really suck. It's just not the kind of book that can be adaptable to film, in my opinion.

Here's the thing. You've not only fundamentally misunderstood Rand's ideas, but have then laid them out here in a deliberate misrepresentation. Now, people who may never have heard of Rand or Objectivism may well wander onto this page looking for information about a film and turn against her due to your intellectual dishonesty. The idea that her books are “written for 14-year-olds” is truly laughable, in that they could easily read the words and understand the plot, but it is the overall social, political and philosophical relevance of the ideas expressed within the book that draw people in time and again and make the book one of the great novels of our time.

The film looks awful! – but so is this article….

Funny how the Tea Party misunderstands the philosophy behind Rand and then the liberal opposition just assumes that they are correct in their interpretation and thus by default hate the book. This is exactly why the democrats and the liberal left (which I consider myself a part of) are so weak!

I'd be surprised if the author of this blog actually read any of her books. And by the way, when you attack a philosopher and not the philosphy it's called an ad hominem attack and it's a common fallacy.

This writer seems to be very simple minded (also an ad hominem attack :-) ).

But yes! Film looks bad!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Really? How so? I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm on about, and will happily argue the point further.

no no no nooo. I've read Atlas Shrugged. It took me 8 weeks to read it but I always recommended to anyone that asks.
Now Im not a raging Tea Partyist or someone who you can't talk to like you quote: “There’s no point in talking to people who love Atlas Shrugged…. ” I honestly try very hard to stay out of politics, and I'm not the type of person to shove my beliefs in your face and tell you that you're wrong.
But I love that book. That doesn't mean I completely agree with her philosophy on life. The book makes you think though. You can think of it basically as a philosphy class subject in the form of a fictional book.
You can still love the book and not totally agree with everything. Philosophy is supposed to make you question your beliefs, and then either form defenses of them, change them- whether it be a lot or a little, or just add something else to your beliefs.
I don't know how far you got in the book, but I don't think it is fair for you to give an opinion on a book you didn't finish.

I don't agree with this blog post. While certainly Ayn Rand's philosophy is incomplete and is generally inadequate, it's not as if everyone that reads it is a maniac. By reading Atlas Shrugged, I was introduced to the general ideas of individualism and after all was said and done, I understood my place in the world much more than before reading.

In short, Ayn Rand misunderstands that it's impossible to take a solely individualistic view of the world because humans cannot exist in such a state. But, it's a useful thought experiment.

Being a socially liberal person, as Rand was (and tea-partiers generally are not, I might add), I am very upset with the narrow-mindedness and childish tone used in the post. It makes me reconsider reading Thought Catalog.

My, my. I get giddy out of the mere attention the book is getting. Although I put The Fountainhead, which is such a sacred book to me, before Atlas Shrugged, the latter is still very close to my heart.

I think this article's very funny, and my tea partymates agree. Was your point really to poke us out of our burrows or do you just want to be talked about during tea parties that you never get invited to? I'm telling you, so much more happens at tea parties, you'd think you were in a girls' locker room in high school.

But I do agree with you, they shouldn't have attempted to make a movie out of it. Unless they make a 12-hour movie with a crazy Rand book-owning chick as director and John Galt as producer.

So, how about a girl who loves Ayn Rand and reads Anne Rice as well? Ah, that'd be much to handle, no? I will not try to correct your misunderstandings about the book or her philosophy. I'll just fly to Atlantis or seek refuge in Howard Roark. I'm sure he and John Galt were brothers in their past lives.

Very nice work. Summed up the book and Ayn Rand perfectly. Odd that so many commenters seem to be fans of her work. I didn't think there were so many morons reading this site.

Can we all just agree that the movie will suck, at least? They should have set it in the 1940s, like “The Fountainhead.” The plot would still be dumb, but we would at least have had retro clothes and buildings and trains to look at. And women's hats. And everyone could have chain-smoked.

Yeah, it was meant to be an ad hominem attack. (In addition to an actual attack on “Objectivism.”)

I mean, it's Ayn freakin' Rand that we're talking about. She seriously spent her whole life calling people who took government money “parasites,” and way worse than that. And then she took Social Security and Medicaid. It's like if Jesus suddenly went on a mass killing-spree at age 32. It would sort of undercut his message a little bit, right?

one of my favourite activities is getting drunk and talking about how stupid ayn rand is. this is fabulous. i am currently typing with a big grin on my face.

This is bar-none the stupidest article I have ever read on this site. To say it was juvenile and one-sided is like calling the KKK “a little extreme.”

I am in no way political, and so I read the book (based on a recommendation of a coworker) expecting to be utterly bored. This was not the case. I found her storyline to be much more centered on symbolism than most people care to think about, and the interactions of the characters were much more drawn out because of this, and so that she could properly and completely illustrate her ideas for the readers.

The idea of Objectivism is a difficult one to grasp, and after reading into it much more, I found that I do not entirely agree. Still, I feel like it raised some simple points that most people can agree with, and they're things that a lot of people follow quite well without ever knowing what Objectivism is. And since a good deal of the book was centered on the idea that people should “Question the premise” on which things are founded, I feel that her book made the readers take the time to do just that. She created highly intellectual characters, if somewhat one dimensional at times, gave them a goal and then through various stopping points into their world, causing them to use her philosophy to try and uphold they're beliefs. The monologues that the characters go on tend also make the reader question things and that is all that a good writer can hope to do in a book like Atlas Shrugged.

Yes, the book was ridiculously long (right on par with The Mists of Avalon), but if her idea was to play out this philosophy of Objectivism in such a way that people could follow, so as to see how it effected social and business interactions, then she did a damn good job. Still, it's not something that a 14 year old can read, hell, I know a lot of 26 year olds that wouldn't be able to follow it, or even understand the verbiage that Rand uses.

They did fuck up the movie though, didn't they. And you did quite a nice job stirring up controversy, that's why I like this site.

Don't you just love the “it seems like you didn't understand it” argument? Like, what does that even mean?

I don't know about politics, or rather have an opinion on politics, but I loved Anthem and thought it was well written and conveyed a powerful message which gave me reassurance on living my life for myself, and on having courage to stand for my ideas, and brought me out of a neurotic cycle.
I think you are being excessively negative and polar about Ayn as an author.

please don't write book reviews of books you haven't even read, or understood.

Ha, I couldn't agree more. Ayn Rand is a real deal-breaker.

What I expected: an article humorously mocking a unarguably terrible film unfortunately being released.

What I got: a childish rant about a book that the author of this article didn't bother to read.

What I suggest: in the future write stuff like this in your journal, read it, realize how childish and unread you sound (you admitted that you didn't read Atlas Shrugged), then close your journal, and move on to use your writing abilities to write something that is at least constructive, and not inflammatory.

After I typed my comment on this 'piece' I thought, “Emeliabedelia, shit-eating grin,” and “big shit-eating grin.”

In order to deal with the “you haven't read all of this book, you jerk” thing that was inevitably going to come up, I'm going to re-post this comment that I made on Facebook. Here you go:

…I was having a conversation with my friend about this the other day — can you judge a book without having read all of it? He said you couldn't.

Me: “…So, have you read 'Mein Kampf'?”

Him: “No.”

Me: “But you're AGAINST it, right?”

Him (grudgingly): “…Yeah.”

Now, I'm not comparing Ayn Rand to Mr. A. Hitler. But it is something to think about, and I don't know if I'm right or wrong.

I haven't read all of 'Atlas Shrugged.' I read all of it that I could humanly stand. I've read ABOUT it, I've read about Ayn Rand, and I've, uh… seen the movie version of 'The Fountainhead' (which Rand wrote the screenplay for). And I've met Objectivists, and for my other job, I've interviewed Tea Party members, Libertarians, etc.

But still, it is something to think about. This whole having an opinion about something you've never read thing. Everyone DOES hate 'Mein Kampf,” right? But no one's read it, right? (Except for Neo-Nazis; and I also forced myself to read five pages of it once.)

Here's another example: Do I believe in the Bible? No. Have I read all of it? No. I've only read about 30% of it. (I'm a bad Jew.) …So maybe I just haven't yet read the part that would make me like it and believe in it?

Now — if you have read every single page of every book that you have an opinion about, then you are, of course, superior to me, and I have no point. But it's just something to think about.

If I swear to get rid of Atlas Shrugged, then will you plz plz plz sleep with me?

The problem is that this “it's impossible to take a solely individualistic view of the world because humans cannot exist in such a state” is obvious to nearly everyone.

learning about something and taking the time to understand it are two totally different different things. seems like you saw this movie, went on Wikipedia and read the 'Ayn Rand', 'Atlas Shrugged', and 'Objectivism' articles and sat down and wrote this. admitting that you didn't even read the book automatically destroys ~80% of the validity of this article. if you read this book, or at least a few decent essays on Objectivism, I might respect your opinion. I've read just about everything Ayn Rand has written- even her plays, for fucks sake- and I don't agree with everything she has to say. but she was a great writer, and there's no denying that. goddamn, this is such a shit article.

“By the way, if you haven’t read the book — the guy who says 'My only goal is to make money' — well, he’s the good guy.”

if you read the whole entire book and maybe understood a hint of what Rand tries to convey, you might understand this a little bit more. yes, it is ironic as hell. yes, Rand wrote a book called “The Virtue of Selfishness” for fuck's sake. even I think that's a bit off. but I've at least taken the time to understand it before I go around saying why it's horrible or why we should all believe it. and please don't try and refute this comment with your bible analogy because I don't buy that. I'm hardly religious. like a ton of other people, I went to church as kid, hit my teenage years, and all that religion stuff died out. but I don't go around holding signs up (or writing shit articles) about why religion is stupid and why Christians and Catholics should just go kill themselves.

“Actually, the nice thing about this trailer is that it’s exactly as boring as the book.”

yeah, because you totally read the whole entire book, right? so you should definitely be the one to know all about this.

“The nice thing about Ayn Rand is that all her characters are one-dimensional, or occasionally two-dimensional”

god, are you kidding me? Ayn Rand characters are possibly the most complex characters I've ever come across. you can't write 1,000 page stories and have your characters be 'one-dimensional'. that's like comparing a 1,000 page Tao Lin 'novel' to an Ayn Rand story. Tao Lin's characters are one-dimensional. And when you compare those characters to the characters of Ayn Rand, the difference is extraordinary. and yeah, sometimes her characters are so fucking complex that they don't even make sense sometimes. I'll acknowledge that. but then again, I actually read the book.

“So, not only is Ayn Rand a terrible writer, she’s also a — what’s that word again? ah yes! — a hypocrite.”

another blatant attempt at belittling Ayn Rand. what philosopher wasn't a fucking hypocrite. what person isn't a hypocrite? we're all human. and yeah, maybe she was a hypocrite. in fact, there's no maybe, she totally was. but does that mean that everything she did, every story she wrote and every aspect of her philosophy that she created, is now totally invaluable and we should just burn everything she wrote and erase her from history? no, it doesn't. you write about these 'Ayn Rand followers' and how they live in their 'own world', but it seems that you (based on your ignorant views) are the only person living in your own world. a world where reading a few Wikipedia articles makes you such a great critic of literature.

I have more to say, but I'll just stop here. next time you stop to totally discard something without putting any effort into learning what it's about, just stop. keep it to yourself. maybe write it n a notebook. or at least come up with a better fucking title.

Your reply sounds like what Lillian Rearden. Are you her re-incarnate?

Not sure where all of these Ayn Rand loving Thought Catalog readers came from. If anything.. I thought this would be the place where we could cackle at the psuedo-intellectual “theories” Ayn Rand poses e.g., “Objectivism,” a.k.a. a self-help fantasy written in a style akin to Stephanie Meyer’s “Twilight” series.

Accepting, and defending, a senseless “theory” such as Objectivism, is defending a utopia you are aware will never actually happen. If you need an example, you clearly don’t know what was going on in 2008 and may want to e-mail Henry Paulson with “MORAL HAZARD?!” in the subject line (too soon, Henry?)

Also, the page count is absurd, the epitome of bullshit (as defined by Frankfurt,) and a waste of paper.

For every copy of Atlas Shrugged.. we could have had three copies of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Oliver, I enjoyed this piece, well done.

1) Money is good. 2) Selfishness is good. 3) Businesspeople are awesome. 4) Government intervention is horrible. I agree with that. Maybe Ayn Rand is crazy. But the world seems depressing that so many people disagree with those ideals. Really , why do people Complain about capitalism?

Sounds like Oliver has had a run of women who are literate whether they read Rand or not. Either way, this juvenile rant is more than likely due to being afraid of said literate women thus effecting his ability to get laid. His frustration has built to the obsessive compulsion about Ayn Rand and the dirty little secret of him wishing he could have slept with her.

hahaha… what?

i love the internet

Just because I understand something wouldn't make me think it is right. I “understand” Joe Stalin's gulag – doesn't make it right.

Ayn Randians are like roaches.

Wow, you guys get pissy, huh?

No. But I have been to Conway, Arkansas.

Fuck, this book sucks.

“Lillian Rearden

The unsupportive wife of Hank Rearden. They have been married eight years as the novel begins. Lillian is a frigid moocher who seeks to destroy her husband. She compares being Rearden's wife with owning the world's most powerful horse. Since she cannot comfortably ride a horse that goes too fast, she must bridle it down to her level, even if that means it will never reach its full potential and its power will be grievously wasted.

As her motives become more clear, Lillian is found to share the sentiments of many other moochers and their worship of destruction. Her actions are explained as the desire to destroy achievement in the false belief that such an act bestows a greatness to the destroyer equal to the accomplishment destroyed. She seeks, then, to ruin Rearden in an effort to prove her own value, but fails.

Lillian tolerates sex with her husband only because she is 'realistic' enough to know he is just a brute who requires satisfaction of his brute instincts. She indicates that she abhors Francisco d'Anconia, because she believes he is a sexual adventurer.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…

The first two paragraphs are the truest things I've ever read in my entire life.

Atlas Shrugged is fiction. As in, not real. As in, a lot of the circumstances would never ever happen in real life. No, you aren't going to get every business man in the world to be upstanding and realize if they fuck over everyone in the world to make a dollar (which is what the BAD people in Atlas Shrugged do, by the way) they are going to fuck themselves over. But Atlas Shrugged is a good way to analyze that philosophy. The BAD people in the book want to have money for the sake of having money. The good people want to work for money, and they treasure money for what it really is: worth, accomplishment, pride, and productivity. Which is what all of evolution is about. The story is not real. It's not logical. And it's not SUPPOSED to be. There are plenty of books about the big bad boss making a bunch of money using underlings as toe rags. There are plenty of sob stories about under appreciated working class people (a class which I happen to belong in). What makes this book great is that it tells the other side of the story. It's unique. That's the thing about art. Not everyone is going to “get” it. Look at Pollock. Look at contemporary art. Tons of people hate that crap, but it still has it's place in the art world because it is a different view point. Even if the artist is bat shit crazy.

Based upon the views and attitudes expressed in your post, I think you are making the right move in leaving rather than bedding. I don't know anyone who likes Ayn Rand who would go to bed with someone who thinks like Rand's villains; you know the kind who are after things they don't deserve and must deceive people in order to get them.

I hope your stay wasn't as awful as most people expect it to be!

y'all just need to blast inner city's “big fun” into your headphones and dance!

really hope these tea party losers dont read ~thought catalog~ and were only led here by a forwarded email of a forwarded email

I'll be right over,

I kind of liked it. I went to some restaurant that had good sandwiches and a party at the college.

I can think of plenty of philosophers who weren't hypocrites.

So you didn't read the book? Ugh. Bravo.

Yes, it is practically the conservative manifesto, designed to be the yin to Marx's Communist manifesto Yang. Yes, Ayn Rand was a miserable hypocritical woman who was frequently as bad a philosopher as she was a writer. And yes, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Beck do jerk themselves off to sleep every night while reading it. BUT.

It's also highly emotionally compelling, actually pretty original, and it's not just political.

Rand was also arguing for the importance of hard work, doing something you love, and not being put off by the detractors who try to limit your potential.

As a highly liberal, anti-materialistic, Buddhist, I can still say that it's a pretty great read and an inspiring message.

The real issue here isn't any of that though. It's the fact that you just thought you would write a purely critical, biased blogpost that would win you lots of lovely blog comments from overly keen and judgmental people without even reading the book. Now that's just lazy.

Yes, this I agree with. Put it back in the 40s and have some respectable actress as the lead. Blanchett, Winslet, etc. But they wouldn't touch this movie with a 10 ft pole for the same reason that people are afraid to enjoy it (and admit that they do); ignorantly being labeled a conservative.

I disagree, because before one actively considers the notion of the self and its relation to society, it's impossible to articulate an opinion on the self's relation to society. Being stuck in a default setting is unhelpful and is not akin to actively realizing the problems with a solely individualistic view of the world.

That's true if intellectualizing something is required to understand it. It's not. But, some people learn differently so I'll allow the exception. I learned that no man is an island both from the cliche and from realizing I didn't have any friends when I was being a selfish ass.

atlas shrugged is worth the read even if just to allow one to enjoy all the funnie shit that gets written about it. the seductive power of the books is probably similar to that of James Bond; both appeal to one's raw and untempered desire to be more or less perfect: brilliant, brave, ruggedly handsome, and above all, completely adult. i'd say that's what makes it a fascinating book for fourteen year olds: it provides a model for a heroic adulthood. and don't we all think, especially at that age, that if we just tried our hardest we could be such a glorious sort of person…

relevant quote re: this particular article:

“Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.”

another weird thing about atlas shrugged: there are barely any females in galt's gulch. this would not be good for the genetic health of the future superrace. poor uberlibidinous ubermenschen, poor dagny…

I always sigh when people allow Rand's psychotic and mostly baseless political views to discount her literary merit or absolute mastery of the novel form. Even down to her shortest work, she was a literary genius who deserves her place in history as such.

On a side note, The Fountainhead would make a much better movie and was a far better book, in my opinion. You can hate her all you want, man, but Howard Roark was possibly the greatest example of man v. society written in the 20th century.

It's perfectly reasonable and possible to dig George Orwell and Ayn Rand, and to have more respect for the former than the latter, even if you can simultaneously recognize that the latter was a better writer. She was. She had better control of the form, better use of language. But Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War.

Did my link to Anthem seriously get deleted? Why?

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebook…

Might just be missing something. But that's a short read, folks, and demonstrates her ability.

I'm speaking strictly as a writer commenting on another writer. I should rightfully admit that I am a known leftist.

You being an expert and all, I ask you to direct me to the specific works of Ayn Rand wherein she condemned the use of public subsidies. Not that I'm unaware of the fact that she did, in fact, do so, but I want you to prove her hypocrisy in some way other than a generality. Thanks.

'[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.'

I mean, I you could have clicked on the link in my article that led to that, but clicking on links is hard, I know. But of course, you said in your comment that you know that she did condemn the use of subsides, so why are you asking? Your goal is to agree with what I said, but try to be like, “Yeah, but Oliver's a DUMMY, he can't cite things”? Or what? Here. Go away now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

BITCHZ GOING CRAZAY ON THIS ARTICLE

Oh the Wikipedia citation. How scholarly.

Again with the Wikipedia! See, if you had actually read the book (whether you liked it or not), you would have understood the reference.

**YOUTUBE VIDEO REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST ELECTRONICS OUT**…

#1 SITE FOR THE LATEST REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST TECHNOLOGY HITTING THE MAINSTREAM!…

3. TC contributors are smart. They’re at the vanguard of their respective fields and have published everywhere from The Paris Review to Maxim.
4. We’re nobrow and nonpartisan. We don’t take any of this or ourselves too seriously. Culture is our politics.
8. We’re generous. We’re positive. We’re friendly. We prefer to focus on the good than the bad. We’re more celebratory than critical.
10. In a small way, you’re supporting the future of journalism.

How does this article reconcile with the above stated aims? Particularly considering the obvious anti-tea party message and the fact that you continuously quote Wikipedia as a source (even if it is just a source used to complete what you could no longer be bothered to read)

Yeah, the Wikipedia citation and the other citation. The other citation with actual quotes from Ayn Rand, and the Wikipedia citation with actual… quotes from Ayn Rand… and links to other writing about her and other quotes from her. I'm sorry that linking to actual quotations from someone isn't enough for you. Google it yourself then. It's easy.

you obviously have not read Anthem

is this Ayn Rand? I thought you were dead.

I've never read a single page of the inane, mindless, misleading bullshit which is Atlas Shrugged and I don't care one bit. In fact, this is the only time I've ever felt smug, nonchalant, and justified about being intellectually lazy. Why? Because Ayn Rand's theories are literally nonsensical impossibilities that have never and will never work. Arrogant selfish vapidity that if implemented would quickly result in A) absolute global monarchy or B) mass extinction. Oliver, I don't know you but I support your message 100%.

For another excellent critique of the hypocritical nothingness that was Ayn Rand's thought process and novelistic execution, check out “The Bitch is Back” an article in GQ from 09: http://www.gq.com/entertainmen…

seriously, where did all these people come from

I applaud the reference to frankfurt, one of the greatest essays ever written. I have it on my desk actually and each of its 67 pages is better than the entirety of Atlas Shrugged.

I think the reason your Mein Kampf analogy fails is that disagreeing with the core philosophy and analyzing the artistic merits of a book are two different things.

Let's try another Nazi example: I can admire the filmmaking techniques Leni Riefenstahl used in Triumph of the Will, which have influenced countless other films and filmmakers, and still think fascism sucks.

But if I said, “Well, I've seen less than ten percent of Triumph of the Will, but it sucks because Nazis suck! Plus…I read about it!”, I can't expect to have a lot of credibility as a film critic.

I've always thought that there was nothing wrong with Ayn Rand that a really good editor couldn't have cured. Her characters definitely tend to speechmaking, and Rand seemed to think that making the same point ten times was ten times as effective as making it once. I actually think the Fountainhead was a better book than Atlas Shrugged – it was shorter, and had a very memorable villain in Ellsworth Toohey.

Your article has completely changed my views. I used to think that being a productive, honest person and encouraging others to trade voluntarily to further their pursuits was a good thing. You have opened my eyes and made me see that I should be a parasite on others and use the force of Govt to get people to do whatever I think they should do–or at least whatever 51% believe. Bravo for your persuasive powers and highly rational analysis.

There was a Fountainhead movie made in 1949.

Inane. Unfortunately, in the real world, it's the productive, honest people who the worst victims of lassez-faire capitalism.

Villain? I was the hero!

Atlas Shrugged is great, and based on some of the tit suckers I see posting here bitching about the meaning of the movie, I would say the book is correct.
signed,
Someone who worked for what they have…….all of it!

Atlas Shrugged is about individual freedom, about being able to make a better tomorrow for yourself. And how Government brings down people, preventing them from getting ahead. I came to America literally with just the clothes on my back (all my other essentials were lost). I didn't have a penny to may name now I have a home, make 10 times more money than I could ever make in the country I cam from. It just shows that you can be what ever you choose, not what the Government chooses for you.

1) I agree, 2) I think it is more that selfishness isn't bad, 3) People skilled at anything are awesome, 4) is a crock. Government intervention is the only reason corporations can't outright lie about what goes in their products or pay their workers below a living wage, for example.

Greed is a wonderful motivator, and there is no reason to demonize it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't enact controls to keep unscrupulous businesspeople from screwing us.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing and has been shown to work better than the alternatives. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't put a leash on it to protect the weakest of our society.

The philosophy in the book is legitimate… it’s true.  The problem is it is not applicable to the Tea-Party situation, as the “looters” aren’t so foolishly outright as their characterized counter parts in the novel, and they’ve established a far less obvious way to imprison, as we have no “John Galt” character to fight them.

Hahah! I love it. Ayn Rand IS a nut. I have and do own her books, however its more of a reminder to me that there are people like her out there and that I should understand the thinking of an opponent to her philosophies. In addition, her super-fans are INSANELY selfish. She was in love with a guy ( William hickman,) who murdered and dismembered a 12-year old girl…and called him a “superman?!?” scary!

Lol. What Oliver meant to say was, “if I see a copy of Atlas Shrugged on a girls bookshelf , I am out the door in 0.5 seconds BECAUSE I wont have a chance with her. I can’t handle a woman that will ultimately be more successful than me. I am content writing online posts that no one will read unless stumbled on by chance, and expecting handouts to pay for my worthless college education.”

Lol indeed, good sir.  Lol indeed.

Yes, she was a bad, terrible writer and philosopher, BUT…

But she’s a terrible fucking writer.  Comparing her to Orwell is a fucking travesty.

No it’s not. It’s a book about trains and steel. And more trains, and more steel. And then trains and steel again. Good God, I was bored to death and couldn’t wait for it to end.

And your math doesn’t really work. You say that where you came from, you had nothing, but here in America (I’m assuming you mean the U.S. because Canada, Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, etc etc…. those are ALL America too) so here in “America” you can make 10 times as much money as you did before. Well, considering you had zero before, 10 times zero is still zero. So you’re saying here in the land of freedom you have nothing still? Time to go back and study your math again.