If you are into nonfiction, you should try "For the New Intellectual" once you get done with Atlas Shrugged.

A classic.

The only thing a Hollywood movie would do is hide/distort its message.

Volumptuous uggh'd

The problem with Ayn is that her novels are nothing more than thin, redundant vessels for her own pseudo philosophical propaganda. They are all glorified romance novels, centered around brilliant, rich and successful people being held down by the ignorant and unwashed masses. If you've read one, you've read them all.

I remember loving The Fountainhead when I was in college and eagerly picking up Anthem and Atlas Shrugged.

Anthem is easily one of the worst sci-fi novels I've ever read. It's a shallow, ham-fisted, derivative mess, which brings nothing of value to the genre. It also fails as propaganda, because it doesn't employ any of the skillful storytelling elements of The Fountainhead.

Then I moved on to Atlas Shrugged, which is basically a formulaic retelling of The Fountainhead with different characters. I made it as far as the famously bad 'John Galt speech' in which Ayn drones on for 60-plus pages, reiterating her worldview without the gentle touch of any kind of narrative.

Ah, the lengths some will go to justify their own selfishness and vanity.

This is my favorite summation of Atlas Shrugged:

deleted dialogue

Roarke: You put balconies on my design?

Keating: I had to, besides, the tennants wanted them.

Roarke: The tenants?? Fuck the tenants, this is about me.

*****

It's been years since I read it, and I liked it at the time (the only book of hers I've ever read), but I remember looking it over again and seeing how alarmist and ultimately selfish it really was.

^you say selfish as if selfish was a bad thing?

biggest problem with today's culture is that they've taken positive words and corrupted their usage, driving them into negative margins.

>> ^imstellar28:
^you say selfish as if selfish was a bad thing?
biggest problem with today's culture is that they've taken positive words and corrupted their usage, driving them into negative margins.


Selfish is a bad thing.

Selfish is the kid who can't share his birthday cake.

Selfish is the ten for me, one for you corporate culture we've allowed to hijack our country.

The biggest problem with the conservative culture is that they've taken bad words, which represent bad behavior, and given them good meanings.

You'll find this with any political ideology. Euphamism is nothing new and left-wingers are as guilty as right-wingers when it comes to its use. But all this is unrelated to this book. I concur that selfishness is a "bad thing." Perhaps those who disagree should read "Atlas Shrugged" hehe.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28:
^you say selfish as if selfish was a bad thing?
biggest problem with today's culture is that they've taken positive words and corrupted their usage, driving them into negative margins.

Selfish is a bad thing.
Selfish is the kid who can't share his birthday cake.
Selfish is the ten for me, one for you corporate culture we've allowed to hijack our country.
The biggest problem with the conservative culture is that they've taken bad words, which represent bad behavior, and given them good meanings.

>> ^Doc_M:
You'll find this with any political ideology. Euphamism is nothing new and left-wingers are as guilty as right-wingers when it comes to its use. But all this is unrelated to this video. I concur that selfishness is a "bad thing." Perhaps those who disagree should read "Atlas Shrugged" hehe.


You are probably right.

Glad you are sharing this with us.

I am a radical leftist. But I think we progressives are wasting our time with politics.

American politics is a joke. No money, no rights.

I am a radical leftist and it pisses me off when people say that Obama is a Marxist, because he's not even close! If he were halfway close he would earn my full applause. But he's just kissing rich ass.

He forgot about us already. No money, no rights.

And Doc, if you think the left lies as much as the right, you ain't paying attention.

With all due respect.

Selfishness is much more complex than you may or may not realize

You have a piece of cake with 10 slices. Which of these are selfish and why?

0. You eat the whole cake yourself.

1. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake.

2. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake. A bum walks up and asks for a slice and you say no.

3. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake. 9 bums walk up and ask for a slice and you say no.

4. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake. A guy that you hate shows up and asks for slice and you say no.

5. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake. A guy that has been picking on you/beating you up/stealing your cake since you were in 1st grade shows up and asks for a slice and you say no.

6. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake. You have 100 other friends who you don't invite.

7. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake. You know of someone who doesn't have much to eat, but they aren't one of the 9 you invite.

8. You invite 9 friends over to have a piece of cake. Millions of people starve to death every day and you don't invite any of them.



>> ^rougy
Selfish is the kid who can't share his birthday cake.

^ I just give everything that I have.

Cool thing is, people that I know also give what they have to me. Everyone's awesome, and nobodies a selfish prick.

^You give everything, to whom? I haven't gotten anything from you

>> ^imstellar28:
Selfishness is much more complex than you may or may not realize

No, it really isn't.

Selfishness is the likes of Madoff, Abramoff, and credit card swindlers who jack up APRs for no other reason than to squeeze what they can out of a person.

Selfishness is KBR, Haliburton, and Xe.

Selfishness is what screwed this country and threatens the world.

Your paean to selfishness is not very well thought out, and not very funny, either.

The opposite of selfishness isn't megalomaniacal philanthropy, it's simple fairness.

^What is simple fairness? You seem to be suggesting that the cake should be given away, but how do you decide to whom and how much?

^ The cake is obviously a metaphore.

Selfishness is not good for America or the world.

It is the root of all of the problems we face.

You're making excuses for hoodlums.

Selfish people are assholes.

If you work for a selfish man, you're working for a prick.

If you live next door to a selfish man, you're living next to an asshole.

I know you're proud of your selfishness, Stellar, but it's just not even funny.

Now eat your fucking cake.

Here, you can take my piece of it.

^It seems as if you are condemning what you don't understand. Why exactly is selfishness bad?

selfishness is refusing to sacrifice a higher value for a lower value.

selflessness is a sacrificing higher value for a lower value.

I can't see any reason to support the latter, aside from mental illness or low self esteem. You give your cake to others because you value them having the cake more than you value having the cake for yourself - that is selfishness, and its neither bad nor incompatible with sharing. Selfishness is sharing, its just the method in which you internally select who to share with, and how much.

You don't give all your money to strangers on the street do you? Why, because you're "selfish" and only spend it on those you care about?

>> ^imstellar28:
^What is simple fairness? You seem to be suggesting that the cake should be given away, but how do you decide to whom and how much?


The government will seize your cake and a government czar will be appointed by the President to oversee the process of dividing it among the people. The czar will then form a committee to decide how to go about dividing the cake. The committee will then ask for bids to give the appearance of competition, but somehow the czar's brother-in-law who happens to be a certified CD (cake divider) is the only one qualified and his bid comes in under everyone else (of course). Before the cake is divided it needs to go through an economic and environmental impact study which will determine it unfit for the public because it is linked to diabetes and obesity. Government officials are above all this of course so they split the cake between themselves.

>> ^imstellar28:
^It seems as if you are condemning what you don't understand. Why exactly is selfishness bad?
selfishness is refusing to sacrifice a higher value for a lower value.
selflessness is a sacrificing higher value for a lower value.
I can't see any reason to support the latter, aside from mental illness or low self esteem. You give your cake to others because you value them having the cake more than you value having the cake for yourself - that is selfishness, and its neither bad nor incompatible with sharing. Selfishness is sharing, its just the method in which you internally select who to share with, and how much.
You don't give all your money to strangers on the street do you? Why, because you're "selfish" and only spend it on those you care about?


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Even the most seemingly "selfless" things are really selfish IMO.

If there is a situation when someone must "sacrifice" the chances of it happening for someone they don't know drops dramatically especially if not allowed to consider how they'll be perceived by others. When you have time to think about how you'll be perceived for your kind act you may be more willing to sacrifice. This is selfish.

A soldier falling on a grenade is a selfish act. Would a soldier fall on a grenade if he hated or just didn't share a bond with the soldiers near him or thought that no one would appreciate his sacrifice after the fact? This is selfish.

Point of order: Roark and Keating were characters in The Fountainhead, not Atlas Shrugged.

Also, I want to add that Atlas shrugged, despite its faults, was a delight to read. It's like a holiday from stupid.

I am a radical leftist and it pisses me off when people say that Obama is a Marxist, because he's not even close! If he were halfway close he would earn my full applause. But he's just kissing rich ass.

I call him Obamarx because he's not a capitalist (except for his book deals) and how the hell is he 'kissing rich ass' by taking more and more from them (and the middle class), which then leaves less money to invest and create jobs the "little people" need to survive, much less profit?

Do socialists really believe their bad decisions cause no harm and have no negative consequences? Only the ones protected from their folly, which seems to be a great many. When a company screws up, they risk a more immediate and lasting punishment than some inept government agency that will stick around forever on the taxpayer's dime. Hasn't the collapse of GM proven that even that most favorite target of leftists--the corporation--is not immortal and infallible?

Are people who have little material wealth somehow morally superior to those with more money? No, they're exactly the same, only on a smaller scale.

The idea that only private enterprise is filled with selfish pigs while activists and government employees are humble self-sacrificing do-gooders is.....limited.

I'm not saying you're wrong to believe as you do; had I your experience I'd feel exactly the same way. If you're looking for a socialist paradise, I'd try the Netherlands or other Nordic lands or Australia.


"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis

^ You just talk out of your ass.

You should have shut up a long time ago, but you never tire of being wrong.

You people are arguing about different definitions of a word. "Selfishness is good." "No selfishness is bad." How about explaining what you mean instead of shouting nonsense?

Here's Mirriam-Webster's definition:

self·ish

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others (a selfish act)

We are all fundamentally self-centered, as we each have a single point of view in the universe. So a certain degree of regard for one's own welfare is not only acceptable, it is absolutely necessary for a healthy life.

The problem is there in the definition of selfishness: "without regard for others" and "in disregard of others".

Since we are living in a society, the welfare of others has an indirect (or sometimes quite direct) impact on your own life. If you cheat, people will not play with you. If you lie, people will stop trusting you. If you run a business which abuses its workforce you will get substandard product. If you run a business into the ground in order to funnel the last of its revenues into your Swiss bank account, people will despise you, and some of them will likely want to kill you.

On the other hand you can still make a profit and treat people fairly. You can give to your community so that it will be a more pleasant place to live. And you can donate your time or money to benefit those around you, which will grow your self-esteem and enhance your image, and others will want to be kind and generous to you in turn. This is not selflessness, as it eventually provides intangible (but still extremely valuable) benefits to the giver.

It is not selfish to want to keep your profit and spend it as you see fit. But even the staunchest of libertarians acknowledges that some government is necessary to maintain order, and the money for that has to come out of profits. The quarrel is about how much money is necessary, and how it is spent.

A healthy, long term self-interest is sometimes perceived as selfishness, but there is a difference. Real selfishness will probably come back to bite you in the ass. It is my personal belief that even when people seem to get away with their selfishness, they are actually living miserable lives without trust or compassion.

So I hope that you can agree now that given the proper definitions of the word, selfishness is bad for everybody, including the person who is selfish. On the other hand, long term self-interest is good and necessary.

^ You just talk out of your ass.

You should have shut up a long time ago, but you never tire of being wrong.

I'd like to see 100 or so people who believe as you do start a commune and prove the rest of us wrong. Or move to fucking Canada already, I'm tired of your hate-America bullshit.