I wrote a review of the recent Ayn Rand movie, Atlas Shrugged Part 1. And it got me to wondering why people like Ayn Rand in the first place.
The review is here, for anyone who is interested.
If you're an Ayn Rand fan, why do you like her? If not, why do you think that people in America have such an infatuation with her work?
If, for no other reason, she helped shape the ideological beliefs of Ron Paul.
Much of her work highlights the glory that is hard work and honest living, and emphasizes that government are leeches on society.
She was, largely, a Free-Marketeer.
She also helped shape the ideologies of Alan Greenspan, but unfortunately, the second they promised him money he flip-flopped like a flap jack in a lumberjack breakfast.
Here's Alan Greenspan demanding a gold standard:
Yes, everyone, before he sold his soul, Alan Greenspan demanded a Gold standard. (Most likely because of Ayn Rand).
She also influenced Anton LeVey, the founder of the Church of Satan. Greenspan is one of THE most influential people contributing to our latest recession with his push for deregulation and preventing regulation on derivatives, and Rand paints the wealthiest of the wealthy as oppressed. Of course you like her.
You never respond to the point that there isn't a slight chance in the world that Paul wins President, and that his own party even ignores him. How do you feel about that?
Where do you get that she sees the wealthiest of the wealthy as oppressed? An example perhaps?
My take was that it was the achievers she saw as oppressed - wasn't it the wealthy railroad owners, (Atlas Shrugged) and politically connected, (both books already mentioned), that she portrayed as the villains, (oppressors instead of oppressed), and the achievers that started small and grew wealthy via their work that she portrayed as oppressed?
Ron Paul consistently polls third amongst Republican nominations (no matter WHO the flavor of the month is); he has won more straw poll victories than anyone else; everyone in the established media and world of politick is trying to ignore him (he had only 90 seconds to speak in the firs hour of last night's debate, and has been marginalized by the mediators numerous times in the past few)...
... I dunno, it sounds to me like he very well could win. And that the fact that he could is sending shivers down the spines of the lecherous government, media, and other government-supported companies.
They're doing Paul a favor by limiting his time. Much like Perry, the more he talks, the more people realize how bat sh** crazy he is.
Maybe he should sexually assault some women. Republicans seem to like people who do that.
He isn't as high as third in a single poll Evan.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -1452.html
In fact, he has NEVER been as high as 3rd during this entire process. He had only 90 seconds last night because nobody, even in his own party, takes him seriously.
It sounds like he could win? Really? Did you hear that bit of priceless info from Papa Smurf or the maybe the underpants gnomes?
I dig quite a bit of what the guy says, but really man? He could win? He couldn't win at Pictionary.
Ayn Rand is also an atheist. She believes religion is a tax from people that produce wealth to those that produce nothing. She also shows in Atlas Shrugged that people should be allowed to starve to death, including infants. In Atlas Shrugged, she shows a young man dying in his mothers arms and no one would help. This scene was held up as a way business owners should treat workers. The dying man was from Wisconsin, my home state.
I had never heard of her until a few weeks ago, when I discovered her, when watching Youtube. I then watched a few videos of interviews with her, and found her to be a fascinating person, with some good philosophy and religious views. However, I have since read how many people now think she talked nonsense, including Christopher Hitchens, who I would have thought would have shared some of her views. Politically though, she was far too right-wing, and hated the idea of a caring society, which provided welfare for those who needed it. Whilst I agree with her Darwinist understanding of life, I do not care for her social Darwinism.
People should not be enamored with a works that elevate self to God. The libertarian/objectivist cult worships self above all else. It gives the wealthy a reason and license to steal and poor jackels a reason not to fight it!
A thing on which we both passionately agree. Ayn Rand downing a fan dance or the infamous bubble dance, yuch.
Unless you have read her work. You would not understand!
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
John Rogers, on the blog Kung Fu Monkey
I love this quote. I don't agree that every Rand follower is emotionally stunted, but I do believe they are, intentionally or unintentionally, ignoring how humans behave in the real world in favor of some fantasy that serves to bolster their inner selfishness.
I went through an Ayn Rand phase, but thankfully it didn't lead to a lifelong obsession. Although the writing is sub-par and rather emotionless, the ideas she presents can be quite interesting. Atlas Shrugged was actually the last book of hers that I read, and I enjoyed it until I realized how Rand's universe is so different from the one we live in. She had strayed too far from her roots (which was basically writing stories that attacked the socialist Russian system she grew up in) and her characters had become entirely two-dimensional. It seems like every character in Atlas Shrugged is either an innovative genius or a corrupt idiot. Of course the reader is going to feel an emotional attachment to the innovators -- after all, nobody thinks of themselves as a corrupt idiot. The innovative geniuses are the ones who share Rand's political stances and world-view, while the corrupted characters represent those who oppose her. That's manipulation in its finest sense.
Wow! Now tell us what you really think.
Admittedly I am a huge fan.
Saw Atlas Shrugged as so prescient it was uncanny, and then The Fountainhead, which was so brutally honest, concerning what is, what could be, and what should be, that it crystallized some concepts I felt but didn't understand.
So, tossing out the obviously worthless characters that strive for their happiness at the detriment and expense of others...
What is wrong living your life pursuing that which makes you happy?
I read the Fountainhead when I was in high school and thought it was great. Many years later I read Atlas Shrugged and thought it was crap--cardboard characters spouting her "philosophy." Her books aren't taught in college lit classes, and her crackpot alleged philosophy isn't taught in philosophy classes, either. I have a hard time seeing why anyone would admire her stuff.
I too thought many parts of both major works, (Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead), were tedious to get through, and it's not hard to criticize her writing style, there is a lot to criticize, but... it is her brutal honesty about her beliefs that her works portray that is admired by many - myself included.
If giving and sacrifice of yourself makes you happy, then that's what you should live for, but if not, why must someone be considered a deviant just because they don't feel it's right, or fair, to demand they be unhappy in order for someone else to be happy??
I'm not sure "deviant" is the right word for Randians although they do deviate from our western civilization's traditions of Judeo-Christian morality and moral philosophy as well as from common humanitarian instincts felt by most people other than New York bankers, and others suffering from anti-social personality disorder.
Ralph - I don't want to misunderstood - I would not consider myself a "Randian", like all things in life, moderation is the key. I think there is a lot that is correct in her notion that humans should live their lives in a way to ensure their happiness, because then their fulfillment will, (or should), positively effect their interactions with other humans, would should/benefit all.
How much does a crabby, miserable, "feeling-put-upon", person benefit those around them?
The only real point is - choice, it should be yours. It's your life.
**before ya'll pounce, remember I spoke of moderation - the above statement doesn't include the vain, people-using, conscienceless, manipulators or worthless leeches that we all know exists!
Rand didn't accept the concept of the common good as most civilized societies and religions do. Her so-called philosophy is a raw expression of dog-eat-dog Social Darwinism which was long ago rejected by every civilized society.
You mean the great common good that leads to wonderful civilized societies like fascism or communism? After all weren't Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao all about elevating the common good. The trains ran on time, everyone had a job, the people's car, the worker's paradise kind of common good. What is the "common good?" If it is involuntary how is that common or good? Isn't the "common good" an excuse to strip one man of his property by force, or implied force, merely to award it to one who has no claim to it but the "common good?"
Isn't the "common good" used by liberals as an excuse disguised as a reason? The great utopian societies of the liberal fantasy are founded on forced compliance with some fabricated common good. What is the common good? How is the good of each individual not serving a common good? What is the common? Doesn't the aggregation of all individual good create the common good?
If by the common good you mean an ordered society based in laws that protect the rights of the individual, than perhaps we would agree. However, I suspect the common good to which you refer is one in which the individual is subsumed to an over arching order. That the individual is to be submissive to that social order for no other reason than to imbue that social order with ever increasing amounts of power. That a uniformity must be imposed for the sake of the order that gobbles up the individual and the individuals property.
When the liberal says, "the common good," he means a social order that is imposed rather than one that emerges from aggregate actions of individuals acting in accordance with their own interests within a legal framework. The common needs, wants and desires of individuals produce the "common good" when they are allowed to work out their own fate.
There are universal needs, food, water, shelter. There are is a common list of things necessary for a good life - companionship. There are even wants that are so common as to near universality - a happy and safe home, progeny, productive work, etc.... But where is there a common good?
"You mean the great common good that leads to wonderful civilized societies like fascism or communism?"
There yhou go again, putting words into my mouth!
No, that's not what I mean at all. Perhaps like the Scandanavian welfare democracies where the equalities of wealth and income are less and social "family values" are truly respected and implemented. And where corporations are required to deliver honestly and fairly on the promise of market efficiency in the allocation of resources.
"When the liberal says, "the common good," he means a social order that is imposed rather than one that emerges from aggregate actions of individuals acting in accordance with their own interests WITHING A LEGAL FRAMEWORK." (Underscoring added.) Those are a few examples of what the common good means to me. Also minority employment and voting rights, and GLTG rights to equality under the law.
Ah, "legal framework," that's the question. A legal framework to prohibit fraud by NY banksters, pollution by electric utilities, strip miners, chemical companies, e.g., Dow Chemical dumping mercury into the St. Clair River for years and poisoning the perch and walleye making them unfit for human consumption.
So because her work is ignored by the academy her ideas aren't worth contemplating? I would pose the opposite, perhaps her ideas are worth examining precisely because they are out side the recommendations of the staid and typical. Some ideas she offers are interesting and worth consideration, others are not.
Her hardness and coldness are off putting. Concentrating on the self is not selfish but rather an acknowledgement that there is no understanding of anything with out the self. The self is everything. With out self one can do nothing, since existence is the self.
Existentialism offers a more cogent and clear idea of the nature of self then does Rand's Objectivism.
Can I ask you a question? Did you truly understand the above statement?
When any individual is responsible, then it's all about you understanding your self. Understanding every aspect of your life and the responsibility it requires. When you understand your self, then you will realize that your life isn't about you, but it is about other people. Which requires one to see past self(ego). Thus, creating selfless. When it isn't about you, it's good.
Yes, you look out for yourself, but in the greater good thinking, it isn't about you. Yes, you have to be responsible with your life and you should not be a detriment to the survival of the human species. The sole purpose of government is to govern those who would actually threaten the human species. Each Nation has it's own power. Each Nation attempts to protect citizens from domestic and foreign threats. Why? Because people don't like other people or have intolerance of some sort of manner. Which is ego driven.
I wouldn't know. Never read it and the last person I talked with about it, hasn't come back to talk to me about it. He was a hubber who asked an existentialism question. He opened a forum thread about it. I talked with him for a little bit. I guess it was something I said. And as far as Rand's concerned? I've never read one word.
There can be no actual selfless since with out the self there is nothing.
Self never disappears, hence the word "self" "less". Self is part of the word, but that doesn't mean living life needs to be about Self(EGO). It's about creating direction in one's own life and to do that is to be responsible about it. To be responsible about your life, then it is for you to realize that your life isn't about you, it's about other people and peace.
The path to peace only has one path and it's solely based on honesty. Anything less is meaningless.
If your life isn't about you who can it possibly be about. There is no other you. We are not part of some colony organism. We do not bud off of some mighty progenitor. We are born, live and die as individuals. Selfish and self centered have devolved into some notion that to be aware of one's own life and one's own goals is some how deviant when the opposite is the case.
Abandoning one's self in all conceivable ways is impossible and irrational. To hand one's self over to another to exploit for no reason other than someone saying to do otherwise is selfish or self centered and that these two things are just wrong contradicts all of nature, the genetic imperative.
Whose purpose is served by handing one's self over to those who would exploit that misguided good will is not only counter intuitive but, to reiterate, contradicts the genetic imperative to improve the genetic legacy of humanity. If one insulates others from their foolish, self destructive behavior doesn't one damage society and humanities genetic legacy?
Isn't the idea to improve humanity not increase the numbers of slothful, foolish, helpless and hapless? Since when is serving one's self not the highest good for one's self?
The one thing I took away from Rand's books was basically:
Someone elses need isn't a claim on my ability
OR, as I prefer
Why should I help you, if you won't help yourself?
Spoken like a true Randian.
"Someone elses need isn't a claim on my ability
"OR, as I prefer
"Why should I help you, if you won't help yourself?"
Because I may not be able to help myself? Because Christianity and other religions and western civilized societies say that is the moral thing to do? Because we don't want to be tripping over beggars on city sidewalks as in Bangladesh? Because helping others is customary in civilized societies?
Notice I said "won't" help themselves not "can't" help themselves.
For some people, asking for help is the best they can do to help themselves - for a range of reasons that is a huge step for them.
But I won't spend my time helping someone who expects me to do all the work. I'm happy to give them a hand up, but I won't bend over and let them use me as a step up.
Well put, and I don't remember any instances in her writings where she villainized(sp?) those that were not able to help themselves. It was only those that wouldn't try, or expected it as their due that she relegated to Darwin's trash heap.
Rand would chastise you for that position. She would say no one has any right at all to ask for any kind of help and you have no obligation at all to help. She would say, if you do help you are acting against reason. She was a hard one.
That having been said, I agree and would add that when we do for those able to do for themselves we take from them the power of action on their own behalf. It damages the other to do for them when they are able and refuse to do for themselves. It is better for the other when we encourage them to do for themselves - just as we do our children. When someone who is able refuses to do for themselves and refuses encouragement than isn't it better to let them go hungry, be ignorant, grow flaccid, be filthy?
Isn't the negative consequence of sloth one means of rewarding the diligent and rational and punishing the foolish and lazy?
I have a couple of books and don't ask for the names, because I cannot tell you. However, I have a couple of books that use Rand's methodology of thinking and fine tunes it into integrated thinking, which truly grants one's ability, bringing along one's ability to create their own happiness.
Living life is a state of mind. How stable and unstable people are is a direct cause of the problems of the world. Many are medical, yes. But the majority is not. The more medically unstable we have then the more chaos we have.
You want to do away with much of the conflict in the world? Then be responsible at the level you need to be responsible at. What you think is being responsible is no longer acceptable for the human species to survive. If you think I'm crazy? Then so be it, just remember you are playing with Nuclear Power and the billions of lives at stake.
To be honest, I'm an optimist. What I am doing is trying to wake people up to the sort of responsibility it requires to live in this day and age. Many things of the past are no longer relevant. Many traditions that have been upheld over generation after generation, is no longer valid now.
To show people acceptance is the proper path forward. Why? Because tolerance is part of that path. Too much intolerance in the world and the world's population is religious, to the degree of 66% is or has a religious belief. The strict structure religious society is outdated and useless for those who are completely responsible for one's life.
Being completely responsible for every aspect of your life, is the only honest path for living life. Anything less has destructive qualities, because when people are not responsible for their own life, chaos will ensue. If you think I'm wrong.....then I suggest you get out more and take a look around?
I think her own life was quite a mess. Hardness and coldness and looking at life only objectively is not a recipe for a balanced life. Humans have emotions for a reason because life is only perceived subjectively.
Understanding self comes from perception of self and that in part comes from how others see us, and how we interact and relate with others. I don't think self is everything. How many people are lost in their own perception of self? I think when there is too much focus on self, we close ourselves off and that could be applied in the world of business as well. There needs to be balance in order for life to flow.
Self is everything, there is nothing without self. This does not mean no one else exists or that no one else can be important to us but rather it is the first fact. There may be a world and people and things but without self there is nothing. One cannot perceive or do if there is no self. All action begins with self.
The power of the individual is a threat to those that have based their beliefs on group thought.
Ayn Rand spoke of the power of the individual over the mob. Since we are ingrained with the rah rah our team, not ourselves thought pattern Rand cannot be understood by the mob mentality.
Those that believe in the Authority and Sovereignty of the individual will embrace her books.
Just depends on what kind of person you are.
Those who recognize the importance of community and family values won't. Just depends on the kind of person you are. "Sovereignty" has never applied to individuals. The concept usually refers to nations.
Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. According to G. Cohen, the concept of self-ownership is that "each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply
Times are changing and so is humanity. Nations go to war Individuals care and provide for their families.
Freeman on the Land is a growing worldwide movement.
Ranging from slaves to serfs to citizens, families,clans, tribes, communities, employers, states, nations or governments, the concept of individual sovereignty is a bit of a stretch.
“The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. It is the one guarantee of human freedom to the American people.” Frank I. Cobb
Individual sovereignty is the exercise of free will. It is similar to, or the same as national sovereignty, where a country exercises the free will of a nation, without any influence from other nations.
National sovereignty is characterized by geographical boundaries and a set of principles under which sovereignty is exercised within those boundaries. However, individual sovereignty is a state of mind, but its boundaries are limited by the proximity of another individual, also exercising free will. To put it in the vernacular, “your business ends, where my nose begins”. The biblical “golden rule” is also a version of the limits of free will.
The Founding Fathers recognized individual free will, or individual sovereignty as it were, as the right of every human being to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, as was delineated succinctly in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, by its visionary author, Thomas Jefferson, Esq.
However, even though the Founding Fathers codified individual sovereignty into the U. S. Constitution, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the first 10 Amendments in the Constitution, labeled the Bill of Rights, if an individual does not have the courage to exercise his or her free will, he or she, will be an easy mark for control by a government, or a group, or even by one person. They will be vulnerable to propaganda, hype, distortion and lies in that they abdicate their right of free will to someone else, or a group, or a government. Because you see, the exercise of freedom is the exercise of courage in the exercise of free will, which entails the taking of risks. Unfortunately, there are millions of these Americans that exist in America today, who do not have the courage to exercise free will and they are the ones that continually elect politicians who will make decisions for them and give them handouts from the government as well.
Freedom is hard. It demands sacrifice. Although it allows success, it also predicts failure. But the experience of failure accelerates attaining success, because failure is learning. If government takes away the right to fail, as the American government has been doing for some 100 years under a flawed progressive mantra, individuals cease exercising their free will. If individuals cease exercising their free will, governments, groups or other individuals, will fill the gap and take away individual sovereignty from everyone, as they have been and are doing.
It is the exercise of free will, or individual sovereignty, that has poll vaulted a 233-year-old country, conceived in freedom and liberty, into the wealthiest, the most productive, the most creative, the most industrious and the most generous nation on Earth.
If we no longer have the courage to exercise our individual sovereignty, under the flag of freedom, American liberty is doomed and America and Americans will soon be absorbed in the corrupt world of third-world, mediocre nations and shall never rise again as the shining city on the hill.
So while we flail about looking for solutions to our dilemma of socialism, rising debt and declining freedom, the one solution that will preserve, protect and defend our constitution and our liberty, lies in the state of mind of each individual, but on a grand scale, to come to the final realization that they must, individually, have the courage to exercise their God-given right to individual sovereignty, before their individual liberty and their national sovereignty can be preserved.
It was a small percentage of Americans that exercised their individual sovereignty in the precarious days of 1776 and the unprecedented bravery of some exceptional leaders, that gave birth to freedom. Once again, it will be small percentage of Americans who will have the courage to exercise their individual sovereignty and their free will, to push back the government tyranny, at all levels, that has been rising in width and breadth for the last 100 years.
These brave Americans must be the rebel that our Bill of Rights foretells. If these rights reek of sedition, so be it. To be victorious and have those rights preserved, we must shake our fist in the face of constituted authority every day. Because these rights are the one and only guarantee of human freedom to the American people.
Forgive me for quoting Anatole France again:
France on the Majesty of Law
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. That is one of the good effects of the Revolution.
–Anatole France, Le Lys rouge ch. vii (1894) (S.H. transl.)
"those that have based their beliefs on group thought." Rather, group cooperation, consideration and respect for individual differences.
THE VITALITY OF THE AMERICAN
Todd E. Pettys*
American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional
Tradition Before the Civil War. By Christian G. Fritz. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press. 2008. Pp. xi,
The proposition that “the people” are the preeminent sovereign in the
United States has long been a tenet of American public life. The authors of
the Declaration of Independence characterized the American people’s sovereignty as a “self-evident” truth when announcing the colonies’ decision to
sever their ties with Great Britain,
the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 invoked the people’s sovereignty when framing the nation’s
and Americans today exercise their sovereignty each time
they cast their ballots on Election Day. Yet what prerogatives, precisely, does
the people’s sovereignty entail? In modern America, where neither a bloody
revolution nor an entirely new constitution is in the offing, can the people’s
sovereignty manifest itself in ways other than through participation in the
Thanks to this thread I am currently re-reading Atlas Shrugged, although I preferred We The Living (which is brilliant) and The Fountainhead.
Rand takes things to extremes but there is a lot in her books that I identify with - like frustration with people who idolise nebulous "social values" while totally denigrating competence and ability. "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is the motto of people like Jim Taggart and Orren Boyle.
I also like the idea of hers that nobody should have to justify their own existence. I always think that any creed/philosophy that tries to make you do this is inherently suspect.
I am now curious about "We the Living" - all based on your assessment. I hope you are not steering me wrong, my dear. I would hate to hold it against you if you are misrepresenting it.(joke)
The Fountainhead was a good book. The movie was good and a little odd. We do have an interesting reference that has wormed its way into popular culture from "Atlas Shrugged." I have seen "Who is John Gault" spray painted on walls or mentioned in internet profiles as often as I used to see "Frodo Lives."
Seriously, it's easily as good as 1984 or Animal Farm when it comes to describing the horrors of Communism. Better in a way, because Rand actually experienced it first hand and was therefore able to produce a vivid, believable account (although it's fictional).
I am so used to being disappointed with movies that I very rarely watch them now. Especially not "films-of-the-book". The one exception was Lord of the Rings, which I only watched after being cajoled into it and was surprised at how good it was.
Now I must read it. I think Animal Farm, even more than 1984, should be a staple of the students literary diet.
Rand's problem was that she went much beyond "describing the horrors of communism." She attacked the legitimacy of the role of governments in democratic western countries. I've observed that immigrants from communist countries, unfamiliar with the history in their new country, often go overboard and become far right critics of any government restrictions on their "freedom."
Very interesting observation. I've often wondered if the current form of government in Poland is related to what you've observed. I was listening to a thing on NPR years back on how Poland is one of Europe's most conservative country. Of course, I would have to look into Poland's history as well as why other former Eastern Bloc countries are more liberal than Poland.
However, I do know that families that left Poland for America generally planned only to stay here temporarily. They didn't despise their upper classes as much as those in neighboring countries despised their own upper classes, so there might be a relation there. Sorry, I went off into a whole other topic.
I don't know much about Poland except second hand from some Polish American friends. I've observed here on HubPages that several if not all the participants who are immigrants from former Iron Curtain countries tend to be suspicious of the US government. Perhaps it's analogous to the tendency of religious converts to be gung ho super-religious fundamentalists.
Perhaps that was one of the reasons the Vilnius Eleven were posting solid economic and political gains - that is prior to the current global economic problems.
I knew I loved Eastern European Immigrants for a reason.
You may be right, but that doesn't mean that Communism doesn't suck.
Have you read We The Living?
Not only does Communism suck but the shadows that Communism has cast over Europe are sinking the Euro and will eventually end the EU. How sobering that Germany will finally conquer Europe with out firing a shot. Just goes to show that Sun Tzu was smarter than Marx and Hitler.
"You may be right, but that doesn't mean that Communism doesn't suck.
"Have you read We The Living?"
No, I haven't & I agree that Communism sucks.
This is a good discussion. But I don't feel that American has an infatuation with Ayn Rand. And citing a low-budget film made by the actor from One Tree Hill doesn't mean much to me.
I've read Atlas Shrugged. And I liked the novel. I liked that the lead character was a strong woman and I liked the description of the society-- the city life and the trains.
I don't get too involved in her Objectivist philosophy. But I like what I got out of the book: to cherish life and to work hard.
I'm a fan of Ayn Rand because of her respect for honesty and hard work and her unrelenting spirit. I don't agree with much of her thinking but she was a gifted writer in my opinion.
by Susannah Birch6 years ago
I love 'We the living'. Saddest romance ever.Second to that I'd go with 'Anthem'.What's your favourite Ayn Rand book?
by Aya Katz5 years ago
I'm going all the way to Springfield, MO to watch the movie, since local theaters are not showing it. If you are going there, too, let me know, and we could meet before or after the movie.For those of you who are going...
by Leta S8 years ago
Who just hates her and why--and who just loves her and why? And I want to hear from those who have never heard of her, too!
by Credence28 months ago
In a interesting piece of rightwing fiction of the horror genre. ($50.00/gallon gasoline) This film has received rave reviews from the political right as the possibility of an ominous near future of overbearing...
by Sophia Angelique4 years ago
Ayn Rand is the antithesis of a life lived unselfishly - the Christian norm. Why, then, are so many people so in awe of a crazy woman who eventually went into an insane asylum because she was mad. Selfishness is not...
by tony07245 years ago
I myself am really looking forward to seeing how well they adapt the book to film. I read the book so long ago I actually had hair back then !
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.