A review by virtualmima
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

• Loveable characters? No

1.25

Ayn Rand needs to check her premises. She does fairly successfully argue that communism relies entirely on the few people who actually love their work, the solution she proposes is simplistic and less than adequate. Her entire economic philosophy relies on several ideas that she never once brings to question. One key problem with her argument, is that all of the heroes in her book enjoy their work more than anything else in life. The justification is that they value money, suggesting that the work itself doesn't matter as long as it makes money. But clearly these characters enjoy the work itself more than the money they make, since they hardly spend time doing anything but working. The extreme dedication they have for their work is compulsive, even neurotic. Rand fails to explain how work is more enjoyable than anything else in life, or why one's life should be dedicated to such a purpose. Yet all of these characters are apparently working in their own self-interest, when it's actually the "looters", as she calls them, who live by their own self-interest. The true altruists, in her world, are the inventors and businesspeople who put so much effort into their work for the benefit of society, at the sacrifice of all worldly pleasures. Sure, society as we know it would crumble if all the talent disappeared, but what would be the point of society if every moment of our lives was dedicated to the benefit of society rather than our own? Since most of us do not love our work, and many of us don't even know what type of work we would enjoy, if any, her philosophy is not ideal for a good amount of people. It's easy for her to make the argument because she only shows her one side of the argument, and doesn't even try to explain the appeal of the other side. When she indicates that taxation is theft, she not only forgets that the government is providing a service that it should get paid for, but she implies that you need to earn your right to live. What is the point of society then, if not to guarantee people the right to live? The whole point of working is to do more than just live. Having to work to survive is why petty crime exists. If we were given at least the ability to survive, then people would be more motivated to work, since it would be not out of force but out of an intrinsic desire to live a better life.
Despite this, I do appreciate her criticism of relativism. She makes a lot of good points but her conclusions are premature.