Published: 1999 (Written ~1957)
Publisher: Plume
ISBN: 0-452-01187-6
This is another of Ayn Rands philosophical novels that my boss recommended I read. Similar to The Fountainhead it is chock full of drama, hero worship and tragedy. In addition it carries a very clear message with regard to human motivation and the effects of government interference on the economic output of productive people.
Overview
A lot of reviews have been written about this book so if you are looking for a traditional review you might want to Google again! In a nutshell, this book is the story of a heroine (Dagny Taggart) who runs the operations of the nation's largest railroad. She finds herself caught up in a political mess as she tries to save her railroad from being destroyed by the inept policies of politicians who do more harm than good as they try to "save the world."
As in The Fountainhead, Rand resorts to shocking intimate scenes that frankly, I am not sure what they add to the story or to her philosophy. Apparently I am among the "unenlightened" when it comes to this part of her writing but it seems to me to be gratuitous.
In addition, I find her plot to be twisted and not in a good way. There are times as you read that it is obvious she contorts her plot in order to give a character a chance for a 5 or 10 page oration. She also spends an inordinate amount of time developing her characters... sometimes going overboard even after the character has been fully developed. The book would have been twice as good had it been half the length.
Philosophy
In general I agree with Ayn Rand's view of government regulation of the marketplace. What I don't agree with is her apparent belief that everyone that produces is a god and everyone in government is a dolt. Of course she uses hyperbole to make her point... but I think she weakens it by treating everything so starkly.
For instance, over and over you find examples of people not making a decision because they don't want to be responsible. You find them passing the buck and making sure they don't take the blame for anything. She writes about these people in such a way as to make them seem immature, incapable and unappealing. Naturally she is extolling the virtue of those who are risk takers in our society.
Of course we have seen plenty of examples lately of "risk takers" who didn't know what they were doing that have caused a lot of trouble. Risk taking doesn't equal competence. People who are confident in their abilities tend to be risk takers because they have a strong belief that they can handle even the downside of a decision. But there are also people who are risk takers who don't consider the downside of a decision... they take risk recklessly.
Straw Man
Several times Rand throws up straw man arguments in order to pontificate. At one point, Francisco D'Antonio overhears a party-goer pronounce "The love of money is the root of all evil!" Francisco gives a 15 minute speech to all within earshot explaining that money is not evil. Then as an after-thought he throws in a paragraph that "loving money isn't evil" either.
The statement however neither says that money is evil nor that the love of money is evil. It says instead that the love of money is the root of all evil. So just as you must be careful with anger, which is not in and of itself a sin but can lead to sin, you must be careful of the love of money, which is not evil but can lead to evil.
Government Regulation
In Atlas Shrugged, government regulation is seen as the nemesis of progress. In one of the classic scenes, John Galt roars out "Get out of my way!" as the answer to how to solve the world's financial and economic melt-down. Today of course we hear a lot of Libertarians and Conservatives who are screaming the same thing... "Stop all the regulation!"
In general I agree with the idea that government should do less regulating. The problem is that I view free markets in the classical sense. "Free market" has come to mean "free from government regulation" in the minds of many conservative thinkers. In reality though, "free market" means the "free flow of capital" in response to market forces (supply and demand).
Thus, any and all interference with the free flow of capital in response to supply and demand is a detriment to the free market system. It doesn't matter what the source might be. If it's a government that is setting a price floor or ceiling, it is a detriment. If it is a business that engages in monopolistic practices, it is a detriment. If it is a cartel (behind which foreign governments exert force) it is a detriment. Irregardless of the source of the interference, free markets cannot exist with these kinds of interference.
Thus, there are times when government intervention is a good thing! If the government keeps a business or group of businesses from engaging in practices that are harmful to the free market, that intervention is good.
Conclusion
I like reading things that are provocative. In this case, the ideas and theories of Rand are provacative and I like to be challenged in my thinking. I tend to agree with her more than I disagree. My main disappointment was her insistence on "proving" that morality is in the eye of the beholder. She did nothing more than sully her plot with the explicit scenes that could easily have been left out. As such I wouldn't recommend this book but I am looking forward to reading some of Rand's non-fiction work sometime next year!