Light On Dark Water

Here's some actual testimony in support of my view that people do see in Rand's novels something much less sinister than is exhibited in her philosophy as a whole. Following are excerpts from the comments thread on this CNN story, which itself is a pretty conventional view.

Just to make it clear: I think Rand's philosophy as philosophy is mostly evil, and that Atlas Shrugged is an atrocious novel (see this post from 2008). My point is not to defend either. I have two points: one, those of us who find her work appalling need to be accurate about what we're condemning. Blasting her for views she doesn't profess only makes us look bad in the eyes of her admirers. It simply isn't true, for instance, that Atlas Shrugged, for all its very weird idealization of tycoons,  presents ordinary working people as "moochers" etc.; it presents honest hard-working people as honest-hardworking people, and dishonest lazy people as dishonest lazy people, wherever they're found.  And two, more importantly, we should not assume that those who find some sort of inspiration in the novels are  adherents of her entire philosophy, and specifically that liking the (perceived) message of the novels negates a profession of Christianity. The last comment below especially seems to me to account for a lot of her appeal to Americans.

***

I think the point of her book was to champion innovation, hard work, and productivity. She intended to expose big government for its tendency to penalize and restrict innovation and productivity and to reward those who idle and watch as others innovate. That's what I got from it anyway.

***

Only someone who has not read her books, or has a serious problem with reading comprehension would offer this silly straw man of her positions.

What Rand opposed was the state forcing individuals to act as they see fit, as opposed to letting those people decide for themselves, and make their own way in the world.  State force, to make things "fair" was the evil she opposed, not the weak masses as you put it. 

***

All of you libs, who are regurgitating anti- ayn rand propaganda, should understand that she never vilified the poor and never praised the rich.  She praised the individuals who aspired to create, innovate, grow, and better oneself.  You are making the immediate conclusion that the poor are the do nothings and dregs of society.  That is your insecurity.  Rand defined success as following your passions and desires, thinking freely, and aspiring to create for yourself and not for others.  It's not about wealth and poverty.  It's about individual happiness and self achievement. There are plenty of starving artists and entrepreneurs who follow her philosophy.

***

I read Rands book and did not get the same impression as you. I got the impression that when government becomes so controlling business for what they think are reasons that will help the poor then they actually oftentimes do more harm than good.

When governments only policy is the re-dristribution of wealth from the makers to the takers then you soon have no makers and you soon have even more takers.  When you reward failure, then you will have more of it.  when you reward inefficiency then you will get more of it.   All these themes are what seems to be going on in government today.   I think the left wants to present the book as an absolute, but I think most people want to just take the main theme from the book and that is people should rely on themselves more and there government less.

***

What Rand books are you reading? The bad guys are petty bureaucrats, government regulators. The good guys are not all inventors or innovators. They are also hard working people who run a railroad efficiently and provide a valuable service to the population and provide good jobs for people. They are not the crony capitalists who get lazy and decide to grow and profit by getting cozy with the government and getting special consideration. 

***

Her work has little to do with rich or poor.  It's about  how today's society prefers to you conform to its needs at the cost of your independence.