h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The business people of the world are under siege from bleeding heart liberals and commies who want to set up 'people's states' where legislation requires businessmen to be fair, evenhanded, and generous. Businesses creak and collapse under the strain, the economy shudders and begins to topple, but a few dedicated industrialists hang on, fighting for business until the last.
At this rate, the world economy would run down eventually anyway, but someone is hastening the process by abducting lead industrialists and sabotaging their businesses.
Dagny Taggart is the brains behind Taggart Transcontinental, the lead railroad in the United States. Hank Rearden is the genius who created Rearden steel, the miracle metal that will support the future. For these two, their work is their life. And now their work is in jeopardy. They race to uncover this mysterious man who is destroying their world, but he finds them first...


Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, is a dramatic romance, and therefore rather unrealistic.

The drama is all over. You will not have to travel too many pages to meet people for whom everything is overwhelmingly intense. They will do things like crouch over the phone, their fists clenched, their faces working with the agony of an internal struggle before they finally say, "No... I can't... you'll have to trust me - this is the best way..."
As I was saying, dramatic.

As for the romance: honestly, it gets a bit much. The heroine climbs into bed with three men in succession, and they all happen to be friends, and here is where it really gets unrealistic, because they sadly but agreeably pass her along with statements like "Yes, he's a better man then me. I understand." And of course that's just the men she sleeps with; there are many others who cherish a secret but stymied love. It seems impossible for a steely woman to interact with any male without them falling head over ankles in love with her.
So yeah, romantic.

But that's ok. Because if we were going stop there, it would be an excellent romance, and a splendid read. But Rand has a message to give the reader, and just in case you don't get the idea from the storyline, she bangs it over your head with lengthy speeches that go from a page or two to around 30 pages long (!!), all spoken by her characters.

So what is her message? Well, it's supposed to be a stirring defense of capitalism and rationality in the face of relativistic socialistic ideas. Except that, to a large extent, it fails.

It fails because of the lack of realism. Capitalism has incredible good points, and she highlights those too, throughout, but her emphasis is a couple of points that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Thesis one: There are two types of people - the geniuses and the morons. The world needs the geniuses to create industry, forge new ideas, blaze new trails, etc, all of which employs the morons. The morons need to accept that they can't exist without the geniuses and stop trying to cripple the geniuses in an effort to make things more "equal" because things will only deteriorate if you stick a moron in a geniuses position.

That happens repeatedly throughout the book. The genius class is tripped up by the legislation of the morons, who sometimes take over when the geniuses throw their arms up and walk off in disgust. This creates an economic tailspin. As things get worse, the morons legislate more and create more trouble.

So far so good. Only problem: us morons don't really object to the geniuses being in charge. At least, I've never wanted to run Microsoft. I'll leave that to Gates, with pleasure. In fact, any CEO or president can run their company with my blessings. I don't want it. I want a nice little 9-5 (or less) job with some security and benefits that will let me go about my moronic life without worry. (I'd like a life, which geniuses tend not to have.) Morons don't mind working for the geniuses. They just want to know that they can do it securely, without being sacrificed on the altar of genius ambition.

Rand's geniuses are generous in that way. They treat their employees nicely and set fair market prices for their goods. They even consider the economic ramifications of their shipping methods, for Bob's sake!
Fact is, that's not how geniuses are in real life. Your average industrial genius dreams of the monopolies of the industrial era. Not because the geniuses are evil, but because they're out to make money, and the easiest way to do it is to squeeze at both ends.

So what do morons do? They can't fight the geniuses with their brains and abilities because they don't match up. So they use the only tool they have to protect themselves: the government. Thus, we have legislation. You only need to follow the history of the Industrial Era to see that it is necessary.

This segues right into her thesis #2, which is that people need to do things because it suits their personal need for profit, and not because of the call of conscience.

That is 100% true. Even socialism is based on selfishness: people looking for a safety net. We all need to look after our own self interest. (But why does she protest the morons looking after their own interests through protective legislation?)

But the fact is, Rand's geniuses *do* have consciences. As mentioned above, they don't engage in borderline business practices in their search for profit. They tend to see things in the long run, and make decisions that profit society as a whole, and not just themselves.

In Atlas Shrugged, people who use illicit means to line their pockets aren't admitted to the Genius status. But they're really no different than Rand claims her geniuses to be: they're after self interest. And they get it. So what if they destroy in the process; no consciences necessary, right?

So there's an internal contradiction here. Conscience or not? Maybe we just don't agree on what a conscience is.

Anyway, the final thing about Atlas Shrugged that got my goat was the way only the geniuses mattered at all. Everyone else was just thrown away at the end to starve, while the geniuses sit and plan world takeover. Not just the morons who legislated against the geniuses, not only the morons who were the victims of the government morons, but also the morons who worked their tails off for the geniuses.

The scene that most revolted me was the one where Eddie Willers, Dagny's faithful 'servant' throughout the book, is left alone on the Taggart Comet, knowing he is utterly abandoned and cast adrift. Taggart Continental was his life, Dagny Taggart directed his life. Now both are gone, one abandoned by the other, and he abandoned by both. And Dagny, who could never have run the railroad without this faithful moron, where is she? In a living room with the rest of the geniuses, planning where to run her railroads after the world collapses. Good bye, Eddie. You're not clever enough to matter.

I read Atlas Shrugged because I was doing some political self-exploration. Together with Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron", it has convinced me that pure capitalism cannot really exist; some government intervention must exist. Not to protect the morons who want everything to be 'fair' and 'equal', because those people really are morons. No, the reason we need legislation is to protect the people who do their best and are cast aside when they're no longer useful. The legislation is for the Eddie Willers of the world.

I suppose the subject should have read "Book Review: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand".

Will do that for future reviews.

Maybe there should be something in the subject box, like "Book Review: [title] by [author] so people know to just fill in the blanks?

just found this will add it to the reviews