How I discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism – My personal story

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years ago to Philosophy
308 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

It's difficult to say for certain when I was first introduced to Ayn Rand. For the longest time, “Atlas Shrugged” had always been one of those famous literary works, like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Catcher in the Rye,” which I knew were considered classics, but which I had never read and didn't know much about. Ayn Rand's magnum opus was among these, and it sort floated around in my subconscious, just below the level of awareness; existing, but in a state which was incorporeal and insubstantial.

One day, I was watching an episode of South Park titled “Chickenlover,” in which the character Officer Barbrady reveals that he is illiterate, but subsequently learns to read, and then reads “Atlas Shrugged” and decides never to read again because of it. This little cameo nudged “Atlas Shrugged” into my consciousness a bit more, and made me decide that perhaps maybe I wanted to possibly read it someday. I didn't know what the story was even about, but if it was getting made fun of on South Park, it had to be kind of a big deal, right? So I made a mental goal to eventually read “Atlas Shrugged” at some unspecified point in the indeterminate future. Then I went about my regular life as usual and soon forgot about it.

In 2009, I took a summer-sales job selling home security systems door-to-door. The company was sending sales-reps out of state, so I got to visit a part of the country I had never been to before. On the way there, during a layover between flights (tickets paid for by the company), I decided to browse the used book store at the airport. On one shelf there happened to be an old hardcover copy of “Atlas Shurgged.” I eagerly picked it up and read the brief synopsis on the back cover, which gave me a glimpse into a world on the brink of economic collapse. It sounded intriguing, and so I began flipping through the pages. Being somewhat impatient, I flipped towards the back of the book to see what state the world would end up in. Had the characters in the book solved the economic problems of their society? Had things fallen apart completely? What did their world look like? By pure chance, I happened to land on what turned out to be one of the most memorable exchanges of dialogue in the entire book:

––––––––––––––––––––––
“Okay, I'll tell you. You want me to be Economic Dictator?”
“Yes!”
“And you'll obey any order I give?”
“Implicitly!”
“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”
“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn't do that! That's . . . that's not the field of production. That's the field of distribution. How would we pay government employees?"
“Fire your government employees.”
“Oh, no! That's politics! That's not economics! You can't interfere with politics! You can't have everything!”
––––––––––––––––––––––

So... this was a novel about politics and economics? I smiled. This was in May of 2009, and the country was still feeling the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, so the story felt absolutely relevant to the current times. Unfortunately, I was flat broke, and didn't want to spend what little cash I had on a book, even if it did look like it would be a really good one. Looking at my watch, I realized my next plane was going to be departing soon, and I had only about ten minutes or so to get to the terminal. So I put “Atlas Shrugged” back on the shelf and walked out of the bookstore. It would be another three years before I finally picked it up again.

I spent that summer involved in what I had initially thought was going to be just another job to pay the bills, but which, looking back, I now realize taught me some very important life lessons. It was the first sales job I had ever had, and it gave me a totally new perspective on salesmen, business, and money. I admit I didn't do particularly well at the job, as I've always been an extremely shy and introverted person, and had a habit of being a bit submissive (when you're a salesman, these are not good personality traits to have).

Of course I wasn't the only one who was struggling. Many of the other sales reps also found they had significant difficulty in persuading people to buy our product. Taking note of our struggles, our team leader (who had done extremely well with sales in summers past) introduced us to a book which he said would help us overcome our weaknesses. That book was called “The Psychology of Selling,” by Brian Tracy. I didn't know it yet, but this book was going to have a profound impact on my life and my perspective on business and money. It was the first time in my life that I had ever read any self-help book, or any book that dealt directly with the issues of money, sales, and business. It was amazing. Although I admit my skills as a salesman didn't improve much, Brian Tracy's book started me on a journey of financial discovery, a quest to discover the inner workings of business, finance, and eventually, economics.

Following that summer, I started to develop a keen interest in money matters, and I began to actively seek out other self-help books on the subject. Over the next couple of years, I delved into various books like “Rich Dad, Poor Dad,” by Robert Kiyosaki, “Super Rich,” by Russell Simmons, “Think and Grow Rich,” and “The Law of Success,” both by Napoleon Hill, and “How to Win Friends & Influence People,” by Dale Carnegie, along with several others. Combined, these books taught me to think about business and money in a totally new light. They taught me that rather than slaving away for a paycheck at some mindless dead-end job where I would have little control over my own life, I could choose a different path – I could choose freedom. These books taught me that personal success, economic prosperity, and true financial independence were simply a matter of having the proper mindset, of understanding how to create and build real value. I still had not yet read “Atlas Shrugged,” but these other books had established in me a value system based on the principles of independence, personal responsibility, humility, productivity, and financial freedom. I was beginning to think like an entrepreneur.

[CONTINUED IN COMMENTS]


All Comments

  • Posted by Marty_Swinney 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Consider than "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a form of fraud: it is intended to deprive the rightful owner (the ticket-purchaser) of a performance of the enjoyment of that performance, by means of falsehood. Whether done as a perverse kind of joke by an immature person, or as a way to inflict pain and suffering upon others through the ensuing panic. The act creates a monetary loss even without the emotional components of fear and panic. Therefore, yelling fire in a crowded theater should not be considered as a form of speech but rather as a form of theft and fraud.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Maritimus,

    I'm having a slight problem believing that you were required by any building code to install 12 sprinklers in one bedroom. I'm not saying you're lying, but perhaps exaggerating a little. A picture would help. If you send me your city name, I would love to talk to the building permit office to get the lowdown on the requirement you are describing.

    I agree that imposing "anything" would be going too far except for the safety of others than the owners. Therein however lies the problem, other people than your own family do on occasion visit your home and public safety within reason is a reasonable cause for building codes. I would however say that 12 sprinklers in one room goes beyond reasonable. I've never seen more than one sprinkler in a public use hotel room.
    there is a fine balance between private property rights and laws passed by municipalities within the realm of legislative responsibilities of the government body in whatever jurisdiction you live. If you don't like the ;aws appeal to your local court system or run for office.

    Fred Speckmann
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just as DB probably does not have the right to build anything he wants anywhere he wants, I think that the government does not have the right to impose aything they want in my house and on my property. I recently built a new house and the government enforced their "rule" to decorate all my ceilings with sprinkler heads. There are 12 of them in our bedroom. That is tyranny by bureaucracy to any reasonable human being. Don't you think?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, Ayn Rand did not think or say that, as othrs here, much more knowledgeable and articulate than I am, have tried, apparently in vain, to explain to you.
    Italian movie "We the Living", in my opinion, is not a great movie. The two main actors were beginning to be well known, but never became, even much later, great actor. The screenplay omits several of the most dramatic scenes and thus distorts the message of the novel. Directing is, again, in my opinion, plain vanilla.
    I was 9 years old when Tito, on the strength of Red Army guns, "liberated" Beograd, capital of Yugoslavia, and proceeded to execute, in the first two weeks, more than 20,000 "enemies of the people". Tito lived way too long and distroyed any chance for the country tp survive. I told my wife in 1979 that there would be a civil war in Yugoslavia. It came 12 years later and the incompetents in the State Department were cought flat-footed. If I had a chance, I would have been honored to assassinate Tito. You can turn me in to your buddies.
    I was able to leave his "workers' paradise" in 1962 to work and live in Italy and come to this country on Jan. 12, 1967.
    Does that satisfy your curiosity?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I only read AS and Fountainhead, so I only know what I can glean from the stories. I got the idea she was for people living for themselves, and she thought whenever we say we're doing something for other people, not because we want to help other people but rather completely for others, we give up our lives and paradoxically become evil.

    The two books I read were light on actual policy suggestions, but conveyed the philosophy that people's lives are special and actions they take and things they make are their own.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Maphesdus,
    We may achieve equal rights under the law, but as long as man is imperfect, we will never achieve equal treatment in society, at least not by all of our fellow citizens. Nor should we expect it. People in this nation still have the right to be stupid. Otherwise we would imprison far more. They have the right to free association and to say unpopular and un-PC things. The first amendment is not to protect agreeable speech, or agreeable people. It would be superfluous. Some people will always be prejudice and we will have to walk away from them. If they wrong us physically or materially, in the eyes of the law, we have legal recourse. The best we can hope for is equal treatment by our government. It is guaranteed to us by our Constitution. That is something we should demand. There are partisans such as those in the IRS, that are not living up to this and we deserve better from our government.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry but if you file personal bankruptcy, you cannot do so under an LLC. Kiyosaki claims he was bankrupt. Not that some LLC he created to purchase a property went bankrupt.

    BTW, in terms of that advice, John argues in his work over and over that corporations do not actually shield you from liability. Your sole ownership of the corporation or LLC is a matter of public record and anyone that is going to sue your LLC or corporation is going to name you in the lawsuit as well. And for small, petty nuisances, in some states corporations and LLCs have to hire attorneys and cannot represent themselves even in small claims courts - thus adding an extra layer of expenses.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Kind of like the way you argue right? You've got nothing to refute any of his claims about Kiyosaki - so you argue with the way he presents them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Check your premises...

    " any injured non-insured occupant will be treated on my dime."

    Why would this be?

    Oh, yes, laws requiring hospitals to treat the injured who cannot pay.

    Well, then let them die in the streets.

    Oh... your conscience won't let you do that?

    Then don't use your conscience to enslave others because it requires you to spend your money.

    This is the worst kind of bootstrapping.


    And building codes don't ensure that ranch style houses don't fall down. Bureaucrats are not noted for their expertise in home-building. In my experience, neither are architects, but that's another discussion...

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Except for the conundrum of me thinking you don't understand natural rights and you believing that I don't. Kind of an interesting paradox isn't it? The only solution is seems to be that you start your own country, I don't have to since I believe that most people would understand and agree with my point of view, at least as far as building codes are concerned.

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    A biological condition or genetic trait is not a mental illness. A mental illness can be cured. DNA is fixed and unalterable (at least as far as we know).

    Also, studies have been conducted which show that when a homosexual person tries to "act straight" by marrying a member of the opposite sex, it almost always leads to an unstable and unhappy marriage, and typically ends in divorce. When you insist that homosexuals enter into such relationships for the sake of conforming to your prejudiced opinion of what constitutes "normal" behavior, you're effectively condemning them to a life of unhappiness and misery. To call that equal rights is a mockery of the term.

    Also, a business owner cannot actually deny use of a restroom "based upon whatever criteria strikes his or her fancy." There are regulations which impose limits by defining certain criteria which are not legally permissible. Property rights are important, but they are not always at the top of the hierarchy of values in every circumstance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Hiraghm,
    We seem to be in agreement somewhat, but I didn't use 100 stories as a trigger only as an extreme example. as to building codes for a one story ranch style house, if not built on sound principles, the house could collapse and any injured non-insured occupant will be treated on my dime. that would be against my natural rights to not be required to pay someone elses bill through my taxes.

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you understand at all the concept of living within a society and the concept that within that society we agree on following certain rules that deal with the swinging fist doctrine?

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: dbhalling,

    Here you go again, you can't seem to grasp the concept that your understanding of natural rights and mine are different. therefore you are once again simply wrong about there not being multiple interpretations of natural rights. that;s also why dictionaries give multiple definitions for certain words.

    Geometry is based on certain mathematical principles of which there can only be one answer.

    the bottom line is that you are simply incorrect in your belief that you can build anything you want because your building will have an effect on other people within the concept of a society. there's a difference between what you want to build on an island that you own and the lot next door to mine.

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: circuitGuy,
    Thanks for the information, my mind went more in the direction of extortion by the inspectors. although your description of ret isn't that far off my thoughts.

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Natural Rights are like geometry. You start from the premise that you own yourself. There are no multiple interpretations of euclidean geometry and there are no multiple interpretations of natural rights.

    Because you own yourself, you own what you create. There is no room for I get to tell you what you can do with your property when you have not violated any one else's natural rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    She also denounced stupidity, but she didn't advocate forcing people to not be stupid.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The later produced results precisely and completely productive to its initial goal. The goal was always dependency.

    It didn't go wrong, it went very, very right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Okay, so blacks are more dependent on drugs.

    Try reading "Second Contact". It might tell you why, if so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    So black people are inherently drug addicts. What racist nonsense.

    The Civil Rights Act empowered the race hustlers to herd black Americans, whose culture was little different than white American's culture, into the plantation of "black culture", which subsequently destroyed the black family structure.

    It wasn't the war on drugs that withdrew the stigmas from infidelity, out-of-wedlock motherhood, and non-productivity. After the Civil Rights Act, "victimhood" as an excuse for these was institutionalized.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo