I think that every aspiring entrepreneur should buy and try to read the Fountainhead. Howard Roark (main character) is the prototypical entrepreneur fighting to get his ideas to a world that needs them.
It works intellectually, but it is best used for inspiration. How often do you find a piece of literature for $12 that MAY change your life.
All the Ayn Rand you'll ever need is in Anthem. Much shorter than Atlas Shrugged, and better literature to boot.
I'm a long-time fan, after finding one of her books at a flea market when I was a kid (bought it coincidentally at the same time as Walden Two, a socialist manifesto by B.F. Skinner...one was delightfully rational and rang true while the other's greatest feat of intellectual brilliance was the use of glass dinner plates so you don't have to flip them when washing them to know that both sides are clean), but I'll never re-read the John Galt speech. Atlas was just too long. Ayn clearly never heard of DRY (or assumed her readers were too stupid to understand it the first several times she said it).
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are magnificent. To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experience great, life-changing literature. Her objectivist philosophy may be a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing I'd proposed that others -skip- these books.
"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again." -- police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998)
I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make it my religion.
The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)
"The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)"
This one made me laugh a little. What did people want from gmail, Paul? Folders, right? Lots of good folder-related features. Did you give it to them? Nope. You made search work right, threaded the conversations, and to hell with what people wanted. You gave'em what they didn't know they wanted (but what was right). And you were right to do so.
Sure, now you have labels, which are just like folders only not called folders, but I'm pretty sure you weren't around for that (or at least you didn't push for labels if you were around for it).
Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for, but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time. I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :)
Gmail definitely contains some compromises, and I'm ok with that. I'd rather have a good product with millions of users than a "perfect" product with zero users (not that perfection is possible anyway).
"Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for, but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time. I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :)"
I agree, and I know you're not as arrogant as a Rand hero. Your post just made me laugh. ;-)
But I'm glad you clarified, because the "I know what's best" sentence could very well be the best thing ever said on News.YC.
Not a huge Rand fan but I just thought it was an interesting take on why business folks have adopted her.
The philosophy works well with architecture because of "classical" limitations and the power of the individual to evoke change in the modern world. That's a message that any startupper needs even as you're certainly right - we need to iterate with customers in mind. But then, that's our sector. Imagine those crazy businesses where the innovator knew that, if he asked, people wanted faster horses.
Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" is just so arrogant and wrong, but it seemed to be the main point of the Fountainhead (based on the 1/3 of the book that I read 10 years ago...)
I don't think early car manufacturers deliberately made cars look like horseless carriages because they'd be familiar or easy to build. I think it was more because it was the only kind of vehicle they could imagine.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there was a conscious decision -- everyone is limited by what is familiar, including designers and inventors. The point is that retaining familiar elements doesn't doom us to stagnation. Incremental improvements are usually sufficient and more successful.
I want to chime in because your two posts combined are still valued less than pg's rebuttal, but I think you are more right. Early cars were simply modified carriages with motors attached by hobbyists. Hobbyists--already busy enough building and improving their engines--wouldn't stop to learn how to carve wood.
Two interesting ideas come to me about this.
From what I've read, Henry Ford studied assembly lines at the Springfield Armory (which was first to create machines to make individual parts for guns, as well as first to allow non-skilled labor to assemble pieces together without involving a craftsman at all.) What's ironic is that two brothers who created and sold the first gasoline car (motorized carriage) were also in Springfield.
Henry Ford made many innovations to the product and the pipeline. New competitors innovated on the design front to get more customers, while Henry didn't. Since Henry did not change his automobile, and people wanted to buy cars in the 1920's with a more modern look (as defined by not looking like the same car Ford had put out since 1908), other designs took hold.
Successive design changes are made to stand out from the current crowd, that's all.
Think about it this way: how much would you respect an artist that had no personal vision or personal style in his work, but just did whatever his clients wanted so that there was no consistent character at all in his art? Can you name any respected artist that works this way? My guess is no.
The point here is that for an artist to make authentic art, the work has to be a reflection of that artist's core values regardless of what they are. It is that core that gives consistency to an artists work, and it is being true to that core that is necessary (but not sufficient) to make meaningful art.
Rand's point was not at all that Roark would "force" his work on his clients for whom Roark could care less, but rather that the client had to choose Roark because Roark's work resonated with the values of the client in the same way that someone who buys art is hopefully doing so because that art resonates with their values.
The point Rand was making was that culturally the kind of art Roark was producing, in the beginning of the book, is not popular and that only a few desired it. By the end of the book, Roark had found success in finding a growing body of clients who wanted his style of design. He had found his niche and had remained true to his core values as an artist - integrity being the primary one.
That's a false dichotomy. Vision is important, but that vision needs to include a path connecting the vision to the present, and that includes making things sufficiently familiar.
For pure art it may not matter (though I suspect that wealthy artists have adapted to market demands, but won't admit it), but for functional products it matters a lot.
This is sort of an amusing debate, because usually I'm the one pushing to make things more different and unconventional. However, to make changes really take root, you often have to "boil the frog".
The point of yours I was responding to is: "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" So given that, as opposed to the familiarity issue (which I wasn't talking about - but is another intersting topic), I don't see any false dichotomoy in my response.
I think for art you can look at a work in 2 ways: the subject and the style. The subject can and usually is highly influenced by the buyer, but the style of the artist, which I argue should be a manifestation of the artist's core values, should not be influenced. If it were, the artist would lack core values and consistency - which is never the case (that I know of) for meaningful artists. So again, the buyer chooses the artist for their style, and then goes from there on possibly suggesting a subject (such as a portrait), not the other way around.
You can easily argue that Apple is taking this same approach to technology. They present a distinct style of products - usually highly designed/integrated and simple to use (some would argue almost inspiring to use) in their many different products, but the type of product they make is highly influenced by what people want. For many, Apple products might be too simple or too expensive, but there is a growing group of people willing to pay extra for Apple's style of technology.
Now, if Apple were to change their style based on market research for every product, that would be the death of the apple brand as we know it, and they would morph into yet another cloning company. The familiarity idea you were talking about also breaks down with the Apple example, as who knew they wanted a Mac before it existed? It certainly wasn't familiar, nor was the Iphone, etc. But that issue is another topic. My point was that to be a successful artist adherence to a core set of values is key (in the case of business you could call it branding). This issue shows up alot in music, where people will find that a band has "sold out" by changing their unique sound to appeal more to a mass audience thus losing those original fans.
No doubt "stupid and irrational" takes it to a logical extreme. But on some level we have to believe that we know better, don't we? And I'd argue the grander the vision, the greater the stubbornness necessary. What I love about the web is the empiricism involved for the low price of testing what works and what doesn't. Perhaps the conservative nature of car companies owes itself to their expensive design process?
The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" in one that people are absolutely entitled to. Arrogant, yes - wrong, I don't think so.
The funny thing is that in the Fountainhead, Howard Roark really sacrificed A LOT for his singular focus on the types of projects he wanted to work on. His measure of value in his life was not having steady jobs, but achieving his vision. If someone wants to focus on something that doesn't match the conventional goals, I don't see that as being a problem as long as it doesn't inhibit other's freedoms.
Rand again takes this to the extreme, but it helps her to make a point (and makes for a more interesting story).
Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles you're continuing to develop derivative crap, you might see what he did as a bit more revolutionary and appreciate what her message was a bit more. I couldn't put it down, but then, I don't really watch South Park.
In any case, Lloyd Wright's buildings might well have pushed the envelope on art, but they've been criticised on technical grounds.
And the idea that "if you don't do anything you're told not to you'll never do anything new" really doesn't need an 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for humans, a penchant for rape, and no particular talent as a writer.
> 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates ..., a penchant for rape, ...
The relationships between her characters are usually sadomasochistic, not sexual abuse. But even when it does appear it takes up barely ten pages in her novels.
> ... and no particular talent as a writer.
Ironically contrary to her message, the popularity of her books suggests otherwise.
I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.
I don't know how far you'd want to rely on that evidence.
Only a small percentage of people buy books regularly. So to make a big bestseller you have to write a book that gets bought by that huge majority of people who don't read much. And usually their decisions are dominated by random extraneous factors: i.e. it's a biography of someone they admire, or is related to some doctrine they subscribe to, or contains facts they need or gossip they want to know about.
Think of the books you find in the houses of people who have hardly any books: the Bible, the Guinness Book of World Records, a Chilton car repair manual, a racy biography of Princess Di, a book of popular mysticism, a book about how to make money or lose weight. Those are the really big sellers.
Kudos for adding in the Chilton manual. I don't know how you do it, but the detail you add makes these types of observations hilarious because I have seen this set of books in so many houses.
If it's not general popularity, and it's only critical popularity after a few hundred years, then can a writer's talent even be judged in the short term?
(This question sounds smarmy, but I ask it earnestly.)
Good judges can tell who the good writers are, but there's no currently no independent way of telling who the good judges are.
Empirically the oscillations of opinion seem to settle down after a few hundred years. Even then there are probably errors. E.g. tragedies will tend to be more highly regarded than comedies, because they seem more serious.
That, and that when it was pointed out, his response was a non sequitur in the purest sense. Anyone who claims the mantle of rationality ought to have a better grasp of basic logic than that.
Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.
The statement (or at least the fixed one) does follow from the given premise. Just because you disagree with the premise (that popularity might be evidence of quality) doesn't make it non sequitur.
To save myself from repeating the same argument as the few threads above this, I'll just link to it:
Right. You know, finally I did what one of us should have done some 8 or 9 messages back - I went and checked what you actually wrote:
> the popularity of her books suggests otherwise [my emphasis]
In other words, you weren't actually making the claim I thought you were - that popularity implies quality. So I'm sorry for missing your point originally.
I do disagree that popularity is evidence of quality; popularity is only evidence of broad appeal, and you'd still need to demonstrate a correlation between broad appeal and quality - I contend that no correlation exists. But that's a reasonable debate, not a logical fallacy.
But I have to ask - why didn't you tell me that I was refuting an argument you hadn't made...?
From your link: "The architect hero Howard Roark of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is generally thought to be based on Wright, although both Rand and Wright denied this." Generally thought to be based on / possibly inspired by, not exactly 'explicitly refuted' - there's a bit of Wright in Roark, though it may have been misleading to not explicitly state that Roark's character was not wholly inspired by Wright.
You sound like a BOFH - what is your basis for making such superficial, critical statements about highly creative people?
Taken without consideration of the lengthy post you've made throughout the thread it did seem a bit ... arrogant? I'm not sure if that's the right term =)
Er, what's arrogant or critical about correcting a misconception (that The Fountainhead was based on Lloyd Wright's life) with a reference?
As to Lloyd Wright's skills as an architect (if that's what "superficial, critical statements about highly creative people" was referring to) - I do not dispute that he was highly creative, nor that he was the first great American architect. But his roofs habitually leaked, and there were other technical problems with his creations. Since buildings, whilst unquestionably being creative endeavours, are not purely expressive in purpose, technical failings are not trivialities; they'd have curtailed the career of a lesser architect.
Oddly enough, the same is true in software; there's lots of uninspired but technically competent software, there's rather less beautiful but technically unsound software; and very little code which is both beautiful and sound - but competence can keep a coder in the game even if they have no artistic flair.
The same goes for the early years btw -- apple had it's IPO much sooner than ms.
As for which product or company is better, that depends on what you're looking for. I don't believe that there is a single best solution. It's obvious that they both make products that meet a lot of people's needs.
"To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experience great, life-changing literature."
Brevity is one of the virtues of great literature. You'll probably learn that as you grow older and time becomes more valuable to you. Certainly, great literature can be long (Middlesex is perhaps the best novel of the past 20 years, and it weighs in at a pretty hefty 556 pages...this is still significantly shorter than Atlas), but Atlas Shrugged, as art, suffers under the weight of the philosophical treatise that it's carrying around on its back (much like the mythic Atlas, and yes, I believe he should shrug off all that extra weight).
The Fountainhead is somewhat less marred by needless words, but only Anthem is actually free of cruft, in my opinion.
"Her objectivist philosophy may be a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing I'd proposed that others -skip- these books."
People who like what they find in the shorter Rand books will go on to read the others. People who get stuck in the mud of Galt's speech will never pickup another Rand book. That speech is simply terrible literature. It might be good philosophy, but it's not good art.
PG, this is a very interesting comment to me. The reason I say this is that I cite your article 'Mind the Gap' at www.paulgraham.com/gap.html as a an excellent distillation of the key points of Atlas Shrugged with a bit of a technology focus. I had believed that Atlas Shrugged was an inspiration for this article. I guess I was wrong and you have independently argued a lot of the same concepts.
Yes, I have read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the last couple of years, and they were viewpoint-changing events for me. They are lengthy, but it was worth the read for me. My key takeaway is that personal freedom and the ability for individuals to focus on their goals with as little artificial interference as possible leads to the greatest societal gain.
I mostly agree with your statement that "personal freedom and the ability for individuals to focus on their goals with as little artificial interference as possible leads to the greatest societal gain", and I probably agree with whatever PG wrote in 'Mind the Gap' (it's been a while), but Rand seems like something else. She turns it into an extreme ideology, throws in way too much certainty (do her hero's ever consider the possibility that other people are right and they are wrong?), and wraps it up in a long, boring book.
Agree that she takes the message to an extreme that isn't realistic in many cases. It's hard for me to imagine a person being able to live a happy life taking the message to the extreme Rand does in AS. Also, Atlas Shrugged is extremely long for the message it delivers.
However, I actually enjoyed the book and the story. Before I read the book, I had a lot of random and poorly formed ideas about what was economically moral, and this really helped me to crystallize my viewpoints.
I didn't mean to imply that essay was merely a summary of another book. 'Mind the Gap' is my favorite essay in the collection on your site. To me, it argues very convincingly that capitalism is the best economic model the world has. This is a very big picture question, and the fact that the essay argues this so concisely and effectively makes it great.
My point was poorly made. Stated more clearly, in my view, this essay is a work that shares the spirit of a lot of the same lines of thought as AS (though wholly unique in its focus). In addition to this essay being great on its own merits, I recommend this essay to anyone who is interested in getting a flavor of some of the big picture questions AS discusses.
Me too. Having detested Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse Five as a teen, I stopped reading books that seemed to only be popular within the context of being a teenager. It was definitely a good move.
Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one. Atlas Shrugged is on my list of life-changing books. I've long since moved on from objectivism (I'm now a Rothbardian), but it was Rand who first got me thinking coherently about property and social obligation. OTOH, I found Cather in the Rye pretty shallow, and Slaughter Five just seemed like dada. Vonnegut did some great work (Harrison Bergeron comes to mind), but that book is not among it.
"Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one."
Not sure where you got that. All of my posts on this topic should make clear that I'm a very big Rand fan, and have read all of her books (really, all of them). I would never call myself a SOME-PERSONS-NAMEian of any sort, so perhaps that's the difference. I do sometimes refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist, so, philosophically, your Rothbardian views and mine probably coincide more than they differ. ;-)
I actually did enjoy Atlas Shrugged. But the speech is too much, the book too long (by about half), and the characters are weak (for such a long book). When I first started reading Rand, I wanted to share her books with everybody. So I recommended Atlas, her opus, to everybody I knew. None of them made it through the book. All got bogged down in the speech, and either gave up, or skimmed the rest of it. Even people who were reasonably heavy readers (though mostly pulp) still couldn't stomach the whole thing. I started recommending Anthem after that, and everybody made it through...everybody enjoyed it...and some went on to read other Rand books (I recommend The Fountainhead next).
I still believe that intelligent people can get everything they really need to know about Rand's philosophy from Anthem. And, of course, dumb folks can actually read Anthem, understand it, and enjoy it.
But, you're definitely weird to think "Catcher in the Rye" is shallow. Perhaps you like a lot of words in your stories. I don't. Word of advice: Stay away from Hemingway, you won't like it.
"Man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress."
-Ayn Rand
Her books make the case that individuals working in their own self interest are the best thing for "human civilization." Disagree if you will, but you'll have a tough time coming up with a definition of "advancement of human civilization" that everyone can agree on. In the end you fight for your own vision of what the world should be and ignore the rest.
Might is right. Ignore that at your own peril. Especially if you're in a startup.
Where does Brittany Spears fit in the Kardashev Scale? There a millions of people that think she is more important than energy consumption. Should we put them all in the gas chamber?
Even if we let them live, Kardashev, brilliant though he may be, has hardly come up w/ a universal set of values that everyone is, should, or will eventually strive for.
The best you can do is to absorb his ideals, spread his word and create technology that furthers his goals. And in doing that you become an Ayn Rand follower.
> Where does Brittany Spears fit in the Kardashev Scale? There a millions of people that think she is more important than energy consumption. Should we put them all in the gas chamber?
You're probably right. By definition we take ourselves too seriously. But I think what you're seeing has been a long time coming. The Rand Zealots in the tech world have been lurking in the corners of Slashdot, Digg and Reddit listening to a cacophony of post modern, no up or down, no left or right emotional bullshit. I for one am sick of armchair socialists, open source evangalists and peddlers of western guilt. We like our one's and zeros but there is a lot we have to put up with to hang. I think this thread has released the Ayn Rand hounds.
Political disagreements stem from philosophical disagreements. If two mathematicians were arguing about geometry and one assumed that parallel lines never met and the other assumed they did they would not have a meaningful conversation. The problem with most conversations is they mostly deal with surface issues. Clinton or Obama. Bush or Kerry. Blah or Bleh.
Amen to Hacker news for getting to the heart of the matter. And to the the non-Rand-ers, apologies for our intensity and contrarian views. But this conversation will be good for everyone...
Well, it doesn't. The exact rational beliefs that Objectivism encompasses were very carefully laid out by Rand before her death, and all other opinions, beliefs or perspectives were explicitly denounced as irrational. It's hard to take anything seriously that on the one hand says "reject irrationality, think for yourself, reach your own conclusion!" and on the other hand says "but the only way you'll know, and we'll accept, that you're being rational is that you'll reach these conclusions here".
And of course, her primary error is that humans are rational beings. We're not. We're evolved animals, and one of the things we've evolved is the ability to rationalise behaviours that stem from thoroughly irrational sources. That a whole bunch of bright self-made and aspiring individualists who prefer doing to theorising have a lot of time for someone who essentially gave them a way to feel just great about both means and ends which have caused pain to other people+ is hardly surprising; but it's correlation, not cause. Indeed, I suspect that the people who readily accept Rand would basically have thought and acted that way anyway, but would have found an alternative, less satisfying, justification for doing so (for example, the economical justification of the Austrians). The importance of Rand to such people is the moral justification she crafted for them.
+ Note, I'm not passing moral judgement here; what makes us feel guilty about our actions is the combination of empathy with knowledge of the pain we have caused someone else - but we can alleviate that guilt if we can convince ourselves it's for a greater good; and there is no greater good than to have done what is morally right.
Actually, I was thinking about this on the way into Sheffield, and I was wrong to use the term "the pain we cause"; I think what I actually mean is "the pain we have the means to prevent", which does encompass cause, but also covers things like survivor guilt as well. Rand's work allows people to admit that they do have the means to prevent the suffering of others (rather than pretending that they don't, which is dishonest), and yet to maintain that preventing that suffering would in fact be immoral, rather than merely impractical, unhelpful or counterproductive.
Hmm. It looks as though someone's systematically downed every comment of mine they could get to in this thread. If so, that someone should be ashamed of themselves.
I'd have to nominate 'We, The Living' as the best thing she ever wrote, on the grounds of both authenticity and quality. Everything after that was solipsistic pulp polemic, but I do retain a soft spot for WTL. But 'Anthem' was ripped off from 'We' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29) and can't hold a candle to either 'Brave New World' before or '1984' after; its only use is the same as that of 'The Communist Manifesto' (the two works are even as humourless as each other).
Yes, "We" is also wonderful, though I don't see that "Anthem" was a ripoff...it's just another take on the same idea, which many others have taken a stab at over the years. And Brave New World and 1984 are completely different from the former to, and from each other. I love dystopian fiction, so I've read tons of it. My current favorite writer in the genre is Margaret Atwood ("Handmaid's Tale" and "Oryx and Crake"). So I guess if you don't really enjoy reading speculative fiction with a gloomy outlook on the future, maybe you only need to read one of them (probably 1984, since it's the one everybody knows), but otherwise, they're all a lot of fun.
"We, the Living", I didn't care for. The language is stilted (even more than Atlas and Fountainhead). It was her first real writing in English, and it shows. I never recommend WTL to folks who don't already like Ayn Rand, and most of the folks I know who've started it never finished it. I did, but I would never re-read it. (I've re-read Fountainhead and Atlas, minus the Galt speech, a couple of times, and Anthem at least four or five times.)
One need only look at the current mess of Zimbabwe, where all the productive people both black and white, were driven out or killed, to see "John Galt" in action.
Care to explain? It is my understanding that they are being driven out and killed by armed thugs. I'm not sure what percentage of said thugs are government agents but I know it's not 0. How is this John Galt (who desires a world free of the aggressive initiation of force) "in action"?
Mr. Mugabe nationalized all farms in Zimbabwe. There were many British Empire leftovers (white guys) running farms quite successfully. Zimbabwe was actually one of the rare African hopes pre Mugabe. Many said it would be the "bread basket" of Africa the way Ukraine is to Europe and Kansas is to the US. Mugabe siezed all "white owned" land and had native Zimbabweans run the farms. Predictably this all went to shit and their inflation rate now hovers between 6,000% and 10,000%. No exageration. When nobody could run the farms he actually buldozed tenemants and told the inhabitants to go work on the farms. Very little edible food has materialized.
The way this relates to Ayn Rand is that in all her stories the captains of industry are pervceived as evil profit mongers by the masses. The masses evantually rise up and take back what's "theirs" and the entire economy grinds to a halt. This is what Rand witnessed in the Russian Revolution and this is exactly what is happening in Zimbabwe today.
Thanks for clarifying... I read the parent as claiming that the looters (who you refer to as the "masses") are "John Galt in action". It makes more sense to say that the productive farmers picking up and leaving ("striking") would be John Galt in action. However, I think they were generally forced out by the thugs rather than (more Galt-like) voluntarily abandoning their industries.
Is Ayn saying that the individual is more important than the collective, or that the best route to collective improvement is through selfishness? I suspect it's the latter, but Ayn and her followers frame the debate so combatively that it's hard to be sure. I see this confusion rearing its head throughout this page.
(I read the first 100 pages of Atlas Shrugged, and got sick of it. I thought it was uninteresting as a novel and inefficient and not rigorous as a treatise. This part of the novel seemed to intentionally perpetuate my confusion: the conflict, as I recall, was between truly selfish people and collectivists that were too incompetent to see when the selfish people were doing collective good. Why conflate incompetence and collectivism?)
In any case, competition - and therefore the market - is necessarily a collective endeavour. You can't come second in a race with only one participant (well, except for some snobbish cake competitions in tiny English parishes).
I have not read any Ayn Rand but I will immediately. I can not help but think of our current situation with our President and how the public views him. As I grow and experience more, being a business owner, etc... It seems that no matter how much one human knows or thinks they know- there is almost always another human who knows something else and that something else just might be what the first person needs to know.
The Fountainhead was written in 1943. Depeche Mode saw it's first success in 1981. If even one of the best economic minds in 2045 cite Depeche Mode as their influence then you have a point.
But if we're gonna go there (and this is all in jest), I see it like this: in 1981 Depeche Mode were a bunch of drama-whoring junkies with Casio keyboards, yet they managed to express the same basic ideas in far fewer words, plus a catchy euro-pop beat.
I appreciate some aspects of Ayn Rand's thought, but find her books a chore to read.
Alan Greenspan considers Ayn Rand a major influence? It's an interesting factoid, but falls far short of implying causality. I could make another Depeche Mode reference here, but it would be extremely tasteless.
When Greenspan and his ilk characterize people as 'parasites', I parse that as 'anyone who gets between me and the forests of money to which I am entitled'. I might see where he's coming from, but his rhetoric is needlessly violent.
It works intellectually, but it is best used for inspiration. How often do you find a piece of literature for $12 that MAY change your life.