Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

EDITORS NOTE:This column originally appeared in Sightings, a publication of the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Sign uphereto receive Sightings in your inbox on Mondays and Thursdays. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Ayn Rand, in the years of her prime, told Playboy her overarching philosophy was that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. A recent chronicler, Mark David Henderson, said that [s]he wanted to be known as the greatest enemy to religion that ever lived. She put together this philosophy that is all throughout her writingfrom Atlas Shrugged written in 1957, which is still the bestselling novel of all time [sic]. Henderson summarized Rands creed, which she professed and expounded in her novels and endless short writings, talks, and interviews: She believed that the individual is the highest possible occupation of any one person. She believed that one should always occupy their minds, will, and emotions with the highest possible occupation and she believed that would be the self.

The Russian-born immigrant turned American celebrity, still known best for Atlas Shrugged (which bombed as a film), has been getting mugged by reality and by critics, but she has to be described as down but not out. James B. Stewart, whose article on her in The New York Times (July 13) prompts this revisiting of Rand, headlined his story: As a Guru, Ayn Rand May Have Limits. Ask Travis Kalanick. Stewart begins by noting how many biggies in Washington, New York, and Silicon Valley continue to stand by her, but some on this roll call of Rand power-acolytes have been learning their own limits and/or meeting with disaster. To wit

Travis Kalanicknow former CEO of Uber, the Internet ride-hailing service with $50 billion in assetsexperienced the latest Icarus-like plunge of a prominent executive identified with Rand. Hedge fund manager Edward S. Lampert, seen by many as a purist advocate of Randism, has driven Sears and Kmart close to bankruptcy. And Whole Foods founder and CEO John Mackey, who is an ardent libertarian and admirer of Rand, was forced to cede control of his company. Stewart also cites government leaders who live by Randian principles but are not making much of a positive mark.

To the point of Sightings, with its accent on religion, many counsel that this would be a good moment to appraise why and how so many conservative (and other) Christians could buy into a philosophy which, on its face and all the way down, is opposed to religious faith and, in the Christian case, manifestly contradicts all the stories, counsels, commands, and promises of that faith. Of course, Christians and other kinds of believers do not necessarily expect their faith commitments to offer a neat surface match to all, or any, philosophies. Theologian Paul Tillich pointed out the obvious: that Paul the Apostle and believers through the ages have lived with, even relished, paradox. Paradox, however, is not contradiction.

Most of the pages of Rands long tomes, in their celebration of the individual self as the absolute measure of life, militantly, boldly, and without even a hint of secrecy or subtlety, contradict and undercut the Christian view(s) of the redeemed self. Such contradictions have been interpreted away or glossed over by those Christians who have devoted themselves to Rands selfish principles. Yes, this can be a time to revisit these contending creeds and to refresh our language and commitments. A shrug wont serve or solve anything in the current situation.

See the article here:

Revisiting Ayn Rand's anti-religious philosophy | Religion News ... - Religion News Service

On July 8, Dr. Tim Shiell, director of the civil liberties focused UW-Stout Center for the Study of Institutions and Innovation, presented a discussion of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism.

Rand grew up in a Jewish family in St. Petersburg in the early 20th century where her father was a pharmacist. Outgoing, confident and adversarial, she was disappointed with the results of the communist takeover of Russia and with her education.

Granted a visa to the United States in 1925, Rand arrived in 1926, moved to Hollywood, became a writer and playwright, and later moved to New York City. Her mentor was Isabel Paterson, a journalist and political philosopher, who espoused beliefs in individualism and was opposed to Franklin Roosevelts New Deal.

Rand wrote the books of fiction Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Encouraged to do more scholarly works by her friend Nathaniel Branden in 1958, she developed the philosophy of Objectivism. Although she only acknowledged the influence of Aristotle on her philosophy, Objectivism also contains elements of Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th century German philosopher.

In her philosophy of Objectivism, Rand feels that to pursue your own happiness is your highest moral aim. You should figure out what you want to do in your life and do everything to get it.

According to Rand, there are only two sides to every issue. One side is the right side and the other is wrong. Those who have opinions between the two sides or who compromise are evil. She believes in both economic and civil liberty, but considers economic liberty to be the most important.

Rand is in favor of a laissez-faire economy and small government. She does not believe in religion, the soul or divine beings. According to her Objectivist theory, all knowledge is obtained though our senses. Mans productive achievement is his noblest activity. The reason of mankind is the only absolute. Altruism is evil. In her Rational Egotism the I is her God.

Dr. Shiell pointed out a number of individuals that have accepted parts of Ayn Rands philosophy. They include presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, President Ronald Reagan, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Representative Paul Ryan, Senator Ron Johnson, Drs. Ron and Rand Paul, and former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. The list also includes Peter Theil who founded Pay Pal; Mark Cuban, owner of the NBAs Dallas Mavericks; actress Angelina Jolie; rock band drummer Neil Peart, who uses her philosophy in the lyrics to his music; Gene Roddenberry, creator of the original Star Trek TV series; and Hugh Hefner, publisher and playboy.

Ayn Rand is credited as one of the three women who began the Libertarian movement in the United States. Libertarianism is the Objectivist position in politics. Government should only be able to protect people from violence, theft, fraud and other things that go against the peoples rights. People should have the right to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Regulations allow big business to create monopolies. Being in a majority does not make things right. Taxation is theft. Charity should be private charity.

Critics of Ayn Rand feel that self interest has rational limits. Others believe in equal opportunity that comes from governmental regulation and redistribution. Also, no one acquires their wealth by 100 percent of their own efforts so their wealth does not 100 percent belong to them. With Ayn Rands advocaty against social programs, she has been criticized for accepting Medicare and Social Security with her diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer in 1974.

Dr. Shiell explained that Ayn Rands philosophy has created a cult of her personality. Our young adults have been more likely to follow her as they have the desire to get ahead in life. On the positive side, for those who are trained to be giving, they need also to learn to take care of themselves.

The rest is here:

Community Conversations: Professor explains Ayn Rand's cult of ... - Chippewa Herald

When you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

Last week (Public Safety vs. Liberty, WTE, July 9), we took a short glance at Chairman Mao, the worlds leading mass-exterminator, clocking in at 55 million to 70 million Chinese citizens dead, all for the public safety. I guess when Mao said that before a brand-new social system can be built on the site of the old, the site must be swept clean (Introductory Note to A Serious Lesson, 1955), he wasnt kidding.

While eminently qualifying himself as the reigning HMFIC at the top of the Citizens Exterminated Department, however, Mao was by no means alone in his quest to sweep sites clean of the human chattel he and others found to be such a hindrance.

Joseph Stalin, for instance, another exponent of Marxs communist school of thought, determined 20 million to 40 million of his Soviet comrades needing sweeping out of the way as well, giving him Second Place. Life has improved, comrades. Life has become more joyous, he told the survivors at a Stakhanovite Conference back in 1935.

(Sidebar: And Franklin Roosevelt, by smiling and handing Eastern Europe over to Comrade Joseph back at the end of World War II, sentenced another 300 million people to abject socialist slavery for another 50 years. Its these kinds of moral/philosophical failures on the part of the United States that guarantee an aura of respectability to such regimes they could never acquire on their own merits in the world of ideas. And we wonder where such states come from, as we consider how to or even whether to combat them? But I digress ...)

Finally, weighing in at Third Place, we have the German Nazi thug Adolf Hitler, cashing in his chips with 12 million to 20 million souls slaughtered by his hand, all in the name of the public safety.

Despite his distantly third showing in the mass-extermination arena, however, Hitler proved himself unsurpassed when it came to mouthing the collectivist slogans by which he deluded his enslaved serfs:

Our party, he once declared, is convinced that our nation can only achieve permanent health from within on the principle: The Common Interest Before the Self. (Program of the Nazi Socialist German Workers Party, 1920).

Help for small shops and businesses, improved pensions, land for small farmers and other health and education improvements were all promised by the Nazis to their expectant public (The 25 Points, 1920).

What they gave them was the gas chambers. Actions which should make even the staunchest advocates of the true public safety stop and think twice before being bamboozled by such rhetoric in the future.

Well, thats upwards of 100 million people wiped out, right there, just with the Top Three, and we havent even discussed lesser rank-and-file annihilations such as Castros and Guevaras Cuba, Ho Chi Mins North Vietnam or Kim Jong-Uns North Korea. Masters of the public safety, every last one of them.

So then, just what does the public safety actually mean, anyway? We see clearly that such excuses have led to, and are directly responsible for, the commission of the most unspeakably engaged-in atrocities in mans history. But does such a phrase have any conceptual meaning of its own, independent of such philosophical hijacking?

Yes, if and only if those aggregates are handed down in terms of their constituent elements. That is, down to US, each of us, as individuals, as individual human beings.

The public safety, then, if it means anything at all, can only mean the aggregate total of the safety of ALL the publics members, each and every one of us, as individuals. As a collection, not a collective. Which means the protection of ALL our lives and property.

This is what constitutes the public safety; these are the purposes to which our laws are contrived. That each of us, every last one of us, have the security of our lives, liberty and property.

What are we to think, then, of a government which uses that very principle as a justification for further concentrating its powers? The hanging of us by means of our own ideas ... tactically brilliant. Shouldnt some huge red flags have been going off for several decades now?

There was a time in these United States, Dear Reader and not too many generations ago when an awful lot of us believed the public safety demanded the shooting of Redcoats and other allegedly duly-constituted people of authority throughout the land. (aka the American Revolution).

Perhaps, instead of contemplating the atrocities committed by altruist authoritarians for uncounted millennia, those are the lessons of history we should be pondering instead.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email: bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

Go here to see the original:

Harrington: A collection, not a collective - Wyoming Tribune

by Bud Cothern, Ed.D.

In an interview about the revelation that Trump campaign members met with several Russians in June of 2016 under the promise of providing trash on Hillary Clinton, Congressman Dave Brat (R-VA 07) stated, Everybody colludes.Hey Dave, go piss on yourepistemology.

If you listen to Dave Brat long enough, you will hear him interject into the conversation that he is an economist or that he went to seminary or that he taught ethics. I would submit to you that Dave Brat is grounded in none of those schools, disciplines or principles.

Dave Brats theories and opinions, I submit, are as wacky and convoluted as those of L. Ron Hubbard, the inventor of Scientology. The Georgetown University economist Harry Holzer commented on Brats economic hypotheses: A good journal is not going to publish the kind of statistical work he did because it is so low in quality. Brat believes that the role of Protestantism is the strongest factor in economic growth of a country. He leans heavily on Max Weber, an eighteenth century philosopher/economist who believed the same thing, except Weber thought that religious context was eventually drained away from capitalism. Not so Brat, who believes religion, particularly Christianity, is still the strongest factor in promoting capitalism.

Holzer goes on to say:

[Brats] statistical models are very simple-minded In these small-sample regressions, how do we know that religion or the other variables are really exogenous and not just correlated with other characteristics of countries that are doing well? If Christianity is so crucial, what explains the explosion of growth in China, India and other Asian countries (did they experience an explosion of Christianity that I missed)?

So how does Brat dispute this? By going after his own field of study at the epistemological level. Essentially, Brat argues that economics is not a science at all and that mainstream economics is grounded in moral assumptions that are unexamined. In other words, according to Brat, the science of economics his own profession! is a sham.Hey Dave, go piss on your epistemology.

Not surprisingly, just like Paul Ryan and other far-right politicians, Brat also embraces Ayn Rand, the kooky atheist and literary champion of unfettered capitalism in the 1960s. Rand was not an economist or even a philosopher, but her literary devotees include Milton Friedman, the monetary economist who promoted the shareholder value theory of corporate America. Friedman proposed that employees and customers have no stake in a corporation since all the money belonged to shareholders. The only job of the executive, in Friedmans view, is to maximize profits for the companys investors. In other words, Friedman favored moneymaking and greed at all costs to employees and customers. Friedman was also one of the early proponents of school vouchers as an economic principle. Now we know where devotees like Brat and DeVos are grounded. Hey Dave, go piss on your epistemology.

Brats philosophical and ethical connection to Ayn Rand is probably more grounded in pragmatism than in belief. Ayn Rand was an atheist, unlike Brat, who went to seminary. Rand believed the source of mans rights are derived from observed facts, which is why she called herself an Objectivist.For Brat, in contrast, mans rights are derived from God. Another contrast: Rand was a huge advocate of open immigration, unlike Brat, who made cracking down on undocumented immigration a central campaign issue against Cantor. But both hate government, thats one thing they most certainly have in common. (Ironically, Rand died of cancer and was dependent on Medicare and Social Security in her final days.) I guess for Brat, like Rand, money makes all things palatable. Enter Rand enthusiast, millionaire, John Allison, IV.

Allison, head of the large regional bank, BB&T, was such a disciple of Rand that he gave out copies of her work,Atlas Shrugged,to his executives and everyone he met. Leaving BB&T after the financial collapse of 2008, Allison became head of the Cato Institute (engineered by the Koch brothers) in 2012. True to his economic philosophy of unfettered capitalism, (wait for the irony) Allison took TARP bailout funds just before his departure!

Dave Brat received a $500,000 fellowship from Allison tospread the word of Ayn Rand to impressionable college students.So much for his teaching of ethics. Moreover, Brats political career has been enabled by far-right talk radio host Mark Levin, himself aided by the Koch brothers to the tune of $750,000 to promote him and other libertarian-leaning conservatives. Hey Dave, go piss on your epistemology.

Although Brat has pretended to run against the influence of big corporate money in politics, he has accepted huge donations from corporations and PACs like Altria, Deloitte, AKSM (medical), the Koch brothers, the DeVos family and many others.I am running against Cantor because he does not represent the citizens of the 7th District, but rather large corporations seeking insider deals, crony bailouts and a constant supply of low-wage workers, he wrote in theRichmond Times-Dispatchdays before the primary. Hey Dave, go piss on your epistemology.

In sum, I say to Dave Brat: You are not a scholar or even believe in the validity of your own field of study. Quit saying youre an economist. Quit talking about the value of Western religion. Your callous pursuit of unfettered capitalism to the detriment of less fortunate members of the society and your unwelcoming of strangers make you unfit to even bring up your knowledge of anything taught in the seminary. Stop telling us about that; we know it was an empty education. You taught ethics? Pity the fools! You are just a shill for big money interests and a morally corrupt President. You dont care about people losing healthcare, destroying public education or separating families who have lived here most of their lives. You sir, have no compassion; you are simply there for the highest bidder. In your own words, Everybody colludes. Really? HeyDave, go piss on your epistemology.

Read more from the original source:

Everybody Colludes? Hey Dave Brat, Go Piss on Your Epistemology. - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

Silicon Valley is in the midst of an ethical crisis. A series of scandals in recent yearsfrom Theranos to Zenefits to Uber and the systemic problem of gender bias and sexual harassmenthave slowly eroded public perception of the tech industry. The venture capital ecosystem, long shrouded in secrecy, is increasingly being exposed for what it really is: a coterie of mostly white men who wield indiscriminate power over who has a chance at pursuing the American dream.

As the roots of the industrys blind idealism are being surfaced, critics often point to the outsize influence of Objectivism, the philosophy founded by author Ayn Rand, as a dangerous ideology that underpins the worst aspects of Silicon Valley culture. The philosophy, embodied in her books Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, has impacted so many leaders in techfrom Peter Thiel to Evan Spiegel to Travis Kalanickthat Rand has been described as perhaps the most influential figure in the industry. Objectivism is probably best known for characterizing selfishness as a virtue.

Yaron Brook, executive chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute, is on a worldwide tour to promote the philosophy (and dispel its myths) and recently took some time to catch up with Quartz and discuss Objectivism as it relates to the Valleys ethical crisis.

QZ: One of the faces of Silicon Valleys ethical crisis, Ubers ousted leader Travis Kalanick, is famously inspired by Ayn Rand. Her name is now associated with affirming free-wheeling, sometimes-destructive cultures like Ubers in the name of disruption. What do you make of this?

YB: Silicon Valley for the most part has a completely confused understanding of what she even meant. There are entrepreneurs who are inspired by Ayn Rand, who get emotional fuel, a certain amount of courage, audacity, and spunk because of Ayn Rand. I dont think Travis Kalanick ever claimed to be an Objectivist. He said The Fountainhead was his favorite book. Very few of them actually sit down and say, Wow, thats a life-changing philosophy here. In some sense I understand it: theyre too busy living their lives, too busy changing the world and they take what they can from it. They get it superficially: go act, be entrepreneurial, start a business.

How does Silicon Valley get Ayn Rands philosophy wrong?

Theres a misinterpretation of what she meant by selfishness. The classic way they get it wrong is simply believing that Ayn Rand says do whatever you feel like doing, dont care about other people, just do whatever is good for you. And theres no delving into what she means by good for you. Being selfish is really hard work. It means really thinking about what are my values, what are the most important things to me, how do I rank them, and how do I actually pursue them in a rational, productive way? Ayn Rands philosophy is very challenging.

Bernie Madoff is a great example [of misinterpreting selfishness]. Does anyone really think that Bernie Madoff sat down one day and thought, I want to live the best life that I can live? He didnt think. The whole point of Objectivism is living by what Ayn Rand calls the trader principle: to create as many win-win relationships as possible. Trade is always win-win. Its a spiritual transaction, not a financial transaction.

America has traditionally been an anti-intellectual culture. And this is also true of Silicon Valley. Look at Peter Thiel, who says dont go to college, just start a business. Now thats goodif you have a good intellectual foundation.

The term conscious capitalism has gained traction in recent years, first popularized by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey (whose company was just acquired by Amazon) and now part of Silicon Valley jargon. Why do these entrepreneurswho are the very faces of free-market capitalism and the American Dreamfeel the need to qualify their pursuits by describing it as conscious?

Conscious capitalism is a meaningless term. What John Mackey means by it is, we create win-win relationships out there, we care about our customers, we care about our employees, we care about our community. Of course they do. Capitalism requires the best in human beings. Anything good that capitalism claims to be is implicit. We dont need a new term for it. Whole Foods is just another grocery chain with a great marketing campaign. I dont think Jeff Bezos will buy into this conscious capitalism.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is among the Silicon Valley leaders who have really embraced the concept of conscious capitalismhes working hard to convey a mission-driven image around a for-profit company. Do you think this kind of personal branding is working for him?

Mark Zuckerberg is a conflicted guy. All you have to do is read his open letter to his daughter. Hes very torn between what he doeshis love of his own life, his mission, his passionand being Mother Theresa. He still buys into that morality of sacrifice and selflessness and living for other people. He hasnt replaced his philosophy.

As long as your fundamental moral ideals are focused on the other, the measure of morality is how much you sacrifice for the other. Look at Bill Gates. He is a giant in terms of improving the condition of mankind. Yet he gets zero moral credit for it because he made so much money doing it. So he feels that in order to get moral credit, to be viewed as a good person, he has to give his money away. But hes doing it because he feels guilty, or he thinks he should feel guilty. It might be the second. He does these things to appease this conventional morality that exists out there.

Is the hype around Universal Basic Income a byproduct of this kind of guiltSilicon Valley leaders seeking to justify eliminating millions of jobs, replacing them with robots?

Silicon Valley entrepreneurs tend to think that theyre superior and the rest of humanity cannot take care of itself. I believe that people left alone, given the right tools, almost everybody can take care of themselveseven in a world of robots.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Read this article:

Does Silicon Valley need even more Ayn Rand to fix its ethical crisis? - Quartz

Books that arent business manuals

Heres a New York Times article about several business and political people whove cited Ayn Rands work as influential, mostly The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but have managed to find themselves in trouble of one kind or another.

Ubers former CEO Travis Kalanick is featured and a few members of the Trump Administration, including Trump, are mentioned as devotees. Whats weird is that Atlas, for example, isnt so much Kicking Ass at Business for Dummies as it is a philosophic tome filled with cartoony heroes and villains:

Rands entrepreneur is the Promethean hero of capitalism, said Lawrence E. Cahoone, professor of philosophy at the College of the Holy Cross, whose lecture on Rand is part of his Great Courses series, The Modern Political Tradition. But she never really explores how a dynamic entrepreneur actually runs a business.

She was a script and fiction writer, he continued. She was motivated by an intense hatred of communism, and she put those things together very effectively. She can be very inspirational, especially to entrepreneurs. But she was by no means an economist. I dont think her work can be used as a business manual.

To be fair, no one gets inspired by economics. They get inspired by art! They get inspired by thinkers! Rand did a lot of thinking and writing, but not any business or economics stuff. It would seem that some people have conflated her philosophy and the nuts and bolts of running a business. This includes Kalanick, who is the main punching bag in this article:

Yaron Brook, executive chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute and a former finance professor at Santa Clara University, who teaches seminars on business leadership and ethics from an Objectivist perspective, said, Few business people have actually read her essays and philosophy and studied her in depth. Mr. Brook said that while Mr. Kalanick was obviously talented and energetic and a visionary, he took superficial inspiration from her ideas and used her philosophy to justify his obnoxiousness.

Right. Its like if Elon Musks inspiration for going to Mars was Oh, the Places Youll Go! Sure, thats a great story that helps us realize that life is exciting and full of wonder. But that balloon isnt getting us to the cosmos.

Speaking of art, heres a Justice Department press release announcing charges against Earl Simmons, better known as DMX, and it includes this wonderful quote from U.S. Attorney Joon Kim:

For years, Earl Simmons, the recording artist and performer known as DMX, made millions from his chart-topping songs, concert performances and television shows. But while raking in millions from his songs, including his 2003 hit X Gon Give it to Ya, DMX didnt give any of it to the IRS.

Ah, yes. Nothing satisfies quite like bureaucrats playing off a movie or a song to quip about someone evading this basic obligation of citizenship. The quote continues with this amusing tale:

DMX allegedly went out of his way to evade taxes, including by avoiding personal bank accounts, setting up accounts in others names and paying personal expenses largely in cash. He even allegedly refused to tape the television show Celebrity Couples Therapy until a properly issued check he was issued was reissued without withholding any taxes.

Were all thinking the same thing, right? DMX barked at an accountant until he wrote a check for the gross amount. Yep, just wanted to make sure. Simmons faces 14 charges, with the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence.

The featured job of the week is a Senior Accounting Specialist with FloQast in Los Angeles.

I called attention to the SEC Fort Worth Offices hilarious Twitter account. Megan Lewczyk wrote about net neutrality.

Get the Accounting News Roundup in your inbox every weekday by signing up here.

Image: iStock/rarrarorro

Original post:

Accounting News Roundup: Books That Aren't Business Manuals ... - Going Concern

The Fountainhead, part 1, chapter 10

John Erik Snyte excitedly tells his designers that their firm has the chance for a big, important commission. Theyve been hired to build a house for Austen Heller, the rich and well-connected libertarian writer (Heller is Rands literary stand-in for H.L. Mencken, if that helps you picture him).

The only complication is that Heller wants something new and different, hes already rejected proposals by three other firms, and hes picked a remote and difficult spot to build on:

Later that day Snyte crowded his five designers into a train, and they went to Connecticut to see the site Heller had chosen. They stood on a lonely, rocky stretch of shore, three miles beyond an unfashionable little town they looked at a cliff rising in broken ledges from the ground to end in a straight, brutal, naked drop over the sea, a vertical shaft of rock forming a cross with the long, pale horizontal of the sea.

There, said Snyte. Thats it. He twirled a pencil in his hand. Damnable, eh?

Howard Roark has been working at Snytes firm for five months, but the time stretched behind him like a blank. He hasnt cared about anything hes done there enough to even remember it. But the Heller house speaks to him at a deep level. After days of work at the drafting board, he has a proposal:

The house on the sketches had been designed not by Roark, but by the cliff on which it stood. It was as if the cliff had grown and completed itself and proclaimed the purpose for which it had been waiting. The house was broken into many levels, following the ledges of the rock, rising as it rose, in gradual masses, in planes flowing together up into one consummate harmony. The walls, of the same granite as the rock, continued its vertical lines upward; the wide, projecting terraces of concrete, silver as the sea, followed the line of the waves, of the straight horizon.

The one good thing Ill say for this is that its the closest Ayn Rand has come to describing a Howard Roark house in terms I can picture. It has many levels (so I guess the building is shaped like a staircase?), with sheer fortress-like granite walls and multiple terraces or balconies that project out over the sea.

I mean, okay. Id agree that sounds like a modernist house. Its not everyones cup of tea, but Im sure the right person would like it. Is that really what all the fuss was about?

This is a common problem that authors face when they have a hero whos The Best Ever at something like art or music. If you just assert the heros greatness, the reader will want to know what makes him so darn special. But the harder you try to describe his achievements, the more you run the risk of diminishing them and making them sound mundane.

This is a case in point. Its not enough for us to know that Roark builds houses with big windows and lots of geometric shapes. We have to believe that his houses are somehow perfect in a Platonic sense (oh, the irony!) they have some unique and distinctive quality that makes them different from all others, even other modernist buildings; or that they have some sort of transcendent harmony such that not a line could be changed or a window moved without completely ruining them. You can use as many effusive metaphors as you want, but no actual building is going to faithfully create that impression.

Its the same problem that the filmmakers of Atlas Shrugged faced in their casting: its impossible to use real human beings who are as physically distinct as Rand described them. The language necessarily falls short of any concrete reality.

Snyte does his usual thing, combining the ideas of his designers into a mix-and-match whole. Two days later, theyre all looking at the elaborate watercolor drawing thats going to be presented to the client:

It was Roarks house, but its walls were now of red brick, its windows were cut to conventional size and equipped with green shutters, two of its projecting wings were omitted, the great cantilevered terrace over the sea was replaced by a little wrought-iron balcony, and the house was provided with an entrance of Ionic columns supporting a broken pediment, and with a little spire supporting a weather vane.

Heller comes in to render his verdict on the proposal, and everyone metaphorically holds their breath:

This, said Heller suddenly, loudly, slamming his fist down on the drawing, and Snyte winced, this is the nearest anyones ever come to it!

I knew youd like it, Mr. Heller, said Snyte.

I dont, said Heller.

Heller wistfully says that the house is almost right, but its missing something, some central idea he cant define. Roark pounces:

Roark turned. He was at the other side of the table. He seized the sketch, his hand flashed forward and a pencil ripped across the drawing, slashing raw black lines over the untouchable water-color. The lines blasted off the Ionic columns, the pediment, the entrance, the spire, the blinds, the bricks; they flung up two wings of stone; they rent the windows wide; they splintered the balcony and hurled a terrace over the sea.

It was being done before the others had grasped the moment when it began. Then Snyte jumped forward, but Heller seized his wrist and stopped him.

Snyte fails to appreciate the effort:

As Heller said nothing, Snyte felt free to whirl on Roark and scream: Youre fired, God damn you! Get out of here! Youre fired!

Were both fired, said Austen Heller, winking to Roark. Come on. Have you had any lunch? Lets go some place. I want to talk to you.

Roark went to his locker to get his hat and coat. The drafting room witnessed a stupefying act and all work stopped to watch it: Austen Heller picked up the sketch, folded it over four times, cracking the sacred cardboard, and slipped it into his pocket.

But, Mr. Heller Snyte stammered, let me explain Its perfectly all right if thats what you want, well do the sketch over let me explain

Not now, said Heller. Not now. He added at the door: Ill send you a check.

Then Heller was gone, and Roark with him; and the door, as Heller swung it shut behind them, sounded like the closing paragraph in one of Hellers articles. Roark had not said a word.

Ive often complained that for someone who idolized capitalism the way she does, Rand made her heroes shockingly bad at business. But this scene shows that its really not just her heroes, its all her characters. Why was Snyte so furious that Roark scribbled all over the watercolor?

Yes, the text implies that Snyte has some kind of obsession with the sanctity of his drawings. But they already knew that Heller didnt like it. It was worthless as soon as they found that out. For once, Roark was the one doing the reasonable thing by making a last-ditch effort to save the project (although really he should have just gone back to his desk and gotten one of the sketches hed already done but of course that wouldnt have afforded the opportunity for his manly, dramatic pretend-demolition of the mongrelized watercolor).

However, I do have to question Roarks sense of loyalty. Even though Snyte immediately backtracked and offered to produce another sketch more to Hellers liking, Roark ignored him and walked out on his erstwhile employer, taking the big important client with him. Is this how you ought to treat someone who took a chance on you?

Remember, at the time Snyte hired him, Roark had been out of work so long and was so desperate he was reduced to reapplying to firms that had already rejected him. Snyte saved him from destitution at a crucial moment. And how does Roark reward him for this? By quitting and founding his own competing firm at literally the first opportunity he gets, poaching a major client in the process!

Such behavior would get you blacklisted in the real world, and for good reason. Basic ethics, not to mention common sense, suggests that its a bad idea to stab someone in the back after they helped you out in a big and risky way. But thats a consideration thats foreign to Randian protagonists, who regard other human beings as nothing but stepping stones they can tread on along their way toward getting whatever it is they ultimately want.

Other posts in this series:

Read more:

The Fountainhead: Job-Hopper - Patheos (blog)

But lately, many Rand devotees have been running into trouble. Travis Kalanicks abrupt departure as chief executive of Uber, the Internet-based ride-hailing service he built into a private corporation worth $50 billion or more, is the latest Icarus-like plunge of a prominent executive identified with Rand.

The hedge fund manager Edward S. Lampert, who some say has applied Rands Objectivist principles to the management of Sears and Kmart, has driven those venerable retailers close to bankruptcy.

Andrew F. Puzder, Mr. Trumps first nominee for secretary of labor, is described by friends as an avid Ayn Rand reader. Hes also chief executive of CKE Restaurants, which runs the Hardees and Carls Jr. fast-food chains and whose private equity owner, Roark Capital Group, is named for the architect-hero of The Fountainhead. Mr. Puzder had to withdraw his nomination after allegations that his restaurant companies mistreated workers and promulgated sexist advertising.

The Whole Foods founder and chief executive John Mackey, an ardent libertarian and admirer of Rand, last month had to cede control of the troubled upscale grocery company to Amazon and Jeff Bezos (who, while often likened to a fictional Rand hero, has not mentioned her books when asked about his favorites).

And then theres the scandal-engulfed Trump administration, where devotion to Rands teaching has done little to advance the presidents legislative agenda.

Though people close to Mr. Kalanick told me this week that he has distanced himself from many of Rands precepts while undergoing an intense period of personal reassessment, they all acknowledged that shed had a profound influence on his development. Few companies have been as closely identified with Rands philosophy as Uber.

Uber disrupted a complacent, highly regulated and often corrupt taxi industry on a global scale, an achievement Rands heroes Howard Roark and Dagny Taggart would surely have admired. Many of her ideas were embedded in Ubers code of values. Mr. Kalanick used the original cover art for The Fountainhead as his Twitter avatar until 2013 (when he exchanged it for an image of Alexander Hamilton, and then, in May, for one of himself).

But Mr. Kalanick was urged to step down as chief executive by the Uber board and Ubers major investors over less heroic issues: that Uber fostered a workplace culture that tolerated sexual harassment and discrimination; that it ignored legal constraints, poaching intellectual property from Googles self-driving car endeavor and using technology to evade law enforcement; and that it failed to hire a chief operating officer or build an effective management team. (Mr. Kalanick remains on the board.)

Rands entrepreneur is the Promethean hero of capitalism, said Lawrence E. Cahoone, professor of philosophy at the College of the Holy Cross, whose lecture on Rand is part of his Great Courses series, The Modern Political Tradition. But she never really explores how a dynamic entrepreneur actually runs a business.

She was a script and fiction writer, he continued. She was motivated by an intense hatred of communism, and she put those things together very effectively. She can be very inspirational, especially to entrepreneurs. But she was by no means an economist. I dont think her work can be used as a business manual.

Representatives of Uber and Mr. Kalanick declined to comment.

Rands defenders insist that the problems for Mr. Kalanick and others influenced by Rand arent that they embraced her philosophy, but rather that they didnt go far enough.

Yaron Brook, executive chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute and a former finance professor at Santa Clara University, who teaches seminars on business leadership and ethics from an Objectivist perspective, said, Few business people have actually read her essays and philosophy and studied her in depth. Mr. Brook said that while Mr. Kalanick was obviously talented and energetic and a visionary, he took superficial inspiration from her ideas and used her philosophy to justify his obnoxiousness.

He emphasized that Rand would never have tolerated sexual harassment or any kind of mistreatment of employees. Rand had enormous respect for people who worked hard and did a good job, whether a secretary or a railroad worker, he said. Her heroes ran businesses with employees who were very loyal because they were treated fairly. Of course, some people had to be fired. But she makes a big deal out of the virtue of justice, which applies in business as well as politics.

And even though shed celebrate what Travis did with the taxi industry, showing the world how all those regulations made no sense, she also believed there are rules of justice that do make sense and she supported, he said. You cant just run over all the regulations you dont happen to like.

Mr. Brook complained that Rands critics are quick to point to her followers failures, but rarely mention their successes. He cited the example of John A. Allison IV, the much-admired former head of BB&T Corporation, a regional bank in the Southeast that he built into one of the nations largest before he stepped down in 2008. Mr. Allison handed out copies of Atlas Shrugged to senior executives and is a major donor to the Ayn Rand Institute. He incorporated many of Rands teachings into his 2014 book, The Leadership Crisis and the Free Market Cure.

John is a gentleman and he actually studied Rands works in depth, Mr. Brook said. He couldnt be more different from Travis.

Mr. Allison has called for abolishing the Federal Reserve, while acknowledging that so drastic a step is unlikely. He has met with Mr. Trump at the White House and has been widely mentioned as a potential successor to Janet L. Yellen as Fed chief.

Despite Rands pervasive influence and continuing popularity on college campuses, relatively few people embrace her version of extreme libertarianism. Former President Barack Obama, in a 2012 Rolling Stone interview, criticized her narrow vision and described her work as one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, wed pick up.

Shes also dismissed by most serious academics. Mention Ayn Rand to a group of academic philosophers and youll get laughed out of the room, Mr. Cahoone said. But I think theres something to be said for Rand. She takes Nietzschean individualism to an extreme, but shes undeniably inspirational.

As the mysterious character John Galt proclaims near the end of Atlas Shrugged: Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, its yours.

But Rand has little to say about making the transition from this kind of heroic entrepreneurial vision to a mature corporation with many stakeholders, a problem many company founders have confronted and struggled with, whether or not theyve read or been influenced by her. She never really had to manage anything, Mr. Cahoone said. She was surrounded by people who saw her as a cult figure. She didnt have employees, she had worshipers.

For his part, Mr. Kalanick is said to have turned this summer from Rand to what is considered one of the greatest dramatic works in the English language, Shakespeares Henry V a play in which the young, reckless and wayward Prince Hal matures into one of Englands most revered and beloved monarchs.

A version of this article appears in print on July 14, 2017, on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Tough Times For Disciples Of Ayn Rand.

Continue reading here:

As a Guru, Ayn Rand May Have Limits. Ask Travis Kalanick. - New York Times

New York Times

Take a look at this wonderfully awful net neutrality Day of Action counter-protest Mashable Carter also happened to be the associate producer on the failed Atlas Shrugged movie adaptation. Not ringing any bells? Well, regardless, you get the idea: These are serious people with serious ideas, and you should definitely take their arguments in ... Join the Day of Action for Net Neutrality on July 12th - Battle for the NetBattle for the Net Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help preserve the open internet - Google BlogGoogle Blog Join the Fight for #NetNeutrality - Twitter BlogTwitter Blog Net Neutrality Facts - Internet Association -AT&T Public Policy Blog all 393 news articles »

More here:

Take a look at this wonderfully awful net neutrality Day of Action counter-protest - Mashable

Like many on the coasts, Ive been guilty of engaging in armchair anthropology these past months, and my recent trip to the Aspen Ideas Festival allowed me the opportunity to binge on this newfound interest. In the days since, Ive been stuck on one particular notion that seems to inform our divisivecurrent statethe paradox of cooperative living versus rugged individualism.

In classrooms all over America (at least in the 70s and 80s when I was in school), we learned about the individuals who helped tame the rough, romantic frontier as we pushed westward. In textbooks, we admired those charismatic individuals (think: Davy Crockett, Buffalo Bill, Annie Oakley) who blasted through boundaries. For better or worse, this grand American ideal is now ingrained in our collective mindset.

Cooperative living used to mean you met once a year with your neighbor to fix the fence line that separated your properties. In todays context, we still admire the tough business leader who makes a company successful despite all challengeswithout acknowledging the hard working team around them. Lets face it- its easy to get caught up in that sexy, Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn Rand ideal. Moderation, cooperation, mediation, prudence, and collective identity are just not as attractive as admiring a single, striving person.

But now Im a grown up. Sort of. And this vision does not square with how Ive found success and actually, joy in life. Being part of a community, with common expectations, rules, goals and successes, has been where I have found greatest satisfaction. Supporting one another in good times and bad seems, well, right. Self-interest as a guiding principle seems, well, wrong. And its not how I see people raising children now either.

While listening to so many smart people in Aspen, I was struck by how America is stuck in this duality, especially with regard to foreign affairsgo it alone or join the global community. One session I attended, Has American Grand Strategy Gone Missing?, clearly described this current struggle with scholars and policy experts across the spectrum. If I favored a collective approach to global priorities prior to that discussion, Im now a confirmed believer in a global community. I know Earth is our collective home, and what we do here affects a whole lot of other communities around the world. The same is true in China, Africa, South America, you name it.

Pandemics know nothing of borders. Rising sea levels will affect all coastal cities. It is not a zero sum game, and if we do not work together, well all lose in this new America-First paradigm. We must navigate these massive issues with this collective, global context in mind, not retreat to our little safe corner of the world. Many who gathered in Aspen last week, have direct lines to those in power and are crafting arguments that persuade decision makers to see beyond a limited horizon. I am hopeful these rational, moderatedare I say prudentvoices will become the new heroes of todays classrooms.

image (cc) Todd Petrie

Read the original:

Reflection from Aspen Ideas Fest: Collective Action in the Land of Rugged Individualism - Skoll Foundation