I would like to request your comments (and valid criticisms) regarding my "alternative" views on Atlas Shrugged. Please let me know if I went wrong somewhere with my reasoning.

## Introduction

I might be considered a fan of Atlas Shrugged and the exploration of the ideas expressed therein, however, I am unable to hold back my dismay at the conclusions that the reader is ushered to about the fictional story laid out it the novel. If the described events took place before my very eyes in real life (as some would say is the case these days), I would reach completely different conclusions. In my humble opinion, Ayn Rand was going in the right direction but totally missed the mark.

Collectivism/socialism/altruism/over-regulation seem to be presented as the causes of the stagnation and collapse of society in Atlas Shrugged. On the other hand, individualism, capitalism, free markets and individual rights are presented as the driver for prosperity. Although this may make sense in a way, I would disagree, but not for the reasons that you might think.

From my point of view, there exists a widespread misunderstanding, ignorance and/or denial of certain concepts in at least the western culture. In fact, some things people believe in are plain wrong.

## Concept #1

There appear to be two mutually exclusive survival strategies in nature. It is the question of optimization for quantity versus quality, as expressed in the r/K selection theory regarding species nature. It also applies to human intellectual space. It is individualism versus collectivism, capitalism versus socialism. It is more advantageous for some people to adhere to individualism and for others to adhere to collectivism. Both are absolutely valid and workable in their most optimal circumstances. This must be true, otherwise there would not be r-selected species. I am not a collectivist/socialist myself, but I believe that collectivism is not necessarily what is causing problems.

You guys adhere to individualism because it is the survival strategy you have chosen. You might think that collectivism is wrong because it can't possibly make sense, but in reality it does to some. If you would open your mind and consider the other survival strategy, you would see that it might actually make sense in certain circumstances.

Collectivism is utterly incompatible with and polar opposite to individualism. It is not "wrong", it is just not your cup of tea. An individualist cannot have success in a collectivist society, and vice versa.

## Concept #2

It would seem that most people don't see the elephant in the room, so to speak, the gravest danger to the human species, the thing that is creating all the human-caused problems in the world. It is as if everyone is has a giant blind spot or some sort of cognitive deficiency.

This mysterious thing that everyone ignores is..... PREDATION.

Predation is everywhere in nature. There is no reason to think that it wouldn't exist among humans. My theory is that human-on-human predation (transfer of wealth) is the most powerful force in society. The lack of predation between individuals leads to civilizational boom. Then, predation slowly appears and starts growing in society, eventually consuming it from within and leading to civilizational demise. I believe it is the exact primary reason for the rise and downfall of most, if not all, societies, past, present and future.

I believe that Ayn Rand (and others) conflate two completely separate things: collectivism and predation. It is my view that the looters in Atlas Shrugged are not looting because they are collectivists (even if they proclaim to be). They are looting because they are looters that use collectivism as a convenient cover. You see, looters are politically agnostic. They exist in capitalist societies too, such as those running Ponzi scheme companies, "donating" to politicians for unfair advantage, etc.

If some collectivist group exists that want to have a socialist society then they should be allowed to do it. If they fail, that's their problem. If they succeed, good for them. Individualists don't really need to care about it because they will not be joining. The problem occurs when you have the biggest predator, the state, forcing society (by violence and trickery) to adhere to collectivism against its will. You see, the state is a predatory organization. It seeks to prey on society. Any claims made by the state of it being in service to society is a facade. The state uses not only force but also all kinds of psychological tricks, including things like gaslighting, to make the population give up sovereignty. It uses socialism as one of those tricks to allow for confiscation of property. It then skims off the top (or takes most of it) while doing the redistribution. If a collectivist society was to exist, it wouldn't be centrally planned, decisions would be reached in a decentralized way and it would be voluntaristic. Otherwise, it is just a predatory organization preying upon the masses. You can't have collectivism with a small number of individuals controlling the group.

I always cringe a bit when I think of the way Ayn Rand presents the protagonist class. Thinking of these guys and gals as productive and beneficial to society may not always be correct. In some cases, they might be perpetrators of indirect human predation even while not realizing it. Predation does not need socialism to work.

## Concept #3

There appear to be a small percentage of society that want "liberty" and "limited government". This gives me hope, but also causes me distress because they misunderstand "freedom." The state doesn't want to over-regulate the population because they have nothing better to do. The state wants maximum control over the population to extract its wealth. Wanting "limited government" is like wanting the thief to steal a bit less.

There is no liberty but freedom from predation. The desire for power always boils down to the desire for the wealth of others because that is exactly what they are using it for and there is no point in having it otherwise. It is no wonder that "freedom" leads to prosperity, remove the parasite and the host prospers. Predation, however, always takes hold eventually.

Atlas Shrugged naively seems to convey the idea that government bureaucrats are not very competent. They clumsily cause issues for productive people by excessive regulations and taxation. However, I would argue that in reality the bureaucrats know exactly what they are doing and they are very good at it. Regulation is used by crony capitalists to create monopolies (with bureaucrat's help in exchange for kickbacks). That is predation. Taxation is also predation. True freedom is not about freedom to pursue your ambitions. It is about freedom from predation.

## Concept #4

The idea that prosperity can only be brought about by the free market, personal rights, capitalism and individualism is a misconception. Prosperity is abundance of wealth. Wealth does not magically appear in society. It is PRODUCED. You don't necessarily need individualism or any market whatsoever to produce or be prosperous. You might just have an army of robots doing everything for you and you may not even need to be a member of society.

It is possible that free market societies have higher production efficiency for the simple reason that there is less predation in such societies. However, any market that is "non-free", in my humble opinion, is illegitimate, likely predatory and shouldn't even exist. The idea that personal rights can be granted is also wrong. Rights cannot be granted, only taken away by an illegitimate force.

It is also possible that individualism and self-interest promotes entrepreneurship. However, these things by themselves are not the source of wealth. A business must be productive. You can have plenty of entrepreneurs but if they are wasting resources then society becomes less wealthy. The source of wealth is production. Producing more than consuming leads to excess production and accumulation of wealth. Of course, wealth has depreciation, so, eventually you get a situation in which you are barely able to keep what you have. However, if you invest wisely into increasing production efficiency then this limit continues to increase.

Inventing stuff doesn't necessarily lead to more wealth. If you invent a new type of paint, it might not create new demand but only take away demand from previously existing types of paints. This will not result in change in total wealth. What you really want is to invent production efficiency increasing things. This is a highly specific type of invention that has nothing to do with individualism. Collectivists can likely invent this type of stuff too.

For some reason, there exist a number of wrong assumptions about capitalism, such as, profit is always a positive thing and something that is generated by default. However, this is not the case. "Positive" (or wealth-increasing) profit is generated by a specific method: localized increase in productivity. All other profit is a transfer of wealth from someone else. Let's assume that we have competition in production of some widget. In such environment, profit will likely not be generated because the competing producers will lower their prices until there is no more profit. The only way in that situation to generate profit is to increase your productivity by some method. The problem is, once you do it, you will be able to generate profit for a limited amount of time only. Once your competitors catch on, they will adopt your method and will be able to start lowering their prices again. You must use the limited time you have to generate enough profit to get back the invested capital, the research and development costs of the method that gave you the increased productivity. If you are lucky, you might even be able to generate more capital than initially invested. Sometimes you are going to be in the red and likely go bankrupt. I would claim that profit in capitalism is a bit of a lie at least in the long run, a carrot that keeps business people going. If you generated profit but didn't increase productivity (in society as a whole) then you are a part of a process that is not wealth-generating (in terms of the entire system). You just managed to charge extra for something that would ordinarily cost less. That had the effect of transferring wealth from your customers to you. There are many inefficiencies in the system that can be taken advantage of to do these wealth transfers and the end result is most likely a net loss for society. Some of these are voluntary but some are not. If you invest into a bank robbery by buying robbers gear in exchange for a share of their spoils then you would be investing into an activity which is a transfer of wealth but also a significant loss of wealth (to society as a whole). That would result in decrease in prosperity. My point is that profit can only be prosperity-increasing if it is generated from increase in productivity. One must always analyze the net effect on society by any business activity to be able to tell whether the given activity promotes prosperity. I would consider any business activity that results in net negative total wealth and prosperity to be predatory.

Capitalists accuse socialists of wrongfully accusing capitalist that they have gotten their fortunes by screwing everybody else. I think both sides are wrong. Socialists are wrong because not all fortunes were made by preying on others. Capitalists are also wrong because not all fortunes are made without preying on others. Predation is profitable. You can enrich yourself by being productive but you can also enrich yourself by engaging in questionable transfers of wealth. Why not do both at the same time? I believe that if we were to analyze the top fortunes ever built, we will likely find that the wealth was a result of a greatly productive enterprise as well as a predatory one at the same time. The reason for this is, in order to get to the top you need all the help you can get.

So, even if you have a free market, capitalism and individualism, you may still get stagnation or collapse of society due to the continuing net losses caused by the activities its members are engaging in.

## Concept #5

Society has been brainwashed by the state to think that there needs to be an organization (government) with a monopoly on violence to protect them. However, this organization that the masses have granted the monopoly on violence to is the exact entity that the masses need protection from. Even if you start out with the most benevolent government, eventually it will be taken over by predatory entities and lead to societal enslavement. The only way to keep law an order in a just way is to derive all laws from logic and the most universal assumptions, such as the golden rule. No law should exist because of preferences of a single man or a majority. All laws must be proven to be universally acceptable and must be assumed to have always existed. For example, the no use of force (except in self-defense) rule can be derived from the golden rule. No one else in society but logic and reason may impose rules on its members. Disagree with this at your own peril.

The state is truly the most heinous crime continuously perpetrated against humanity since the dawn of civilization. It is responsible for unimaginable amount of death and destruction. Think of all the wars between nations, poverty, pollution, destruction of nature, waste of natural resources, etc. The sheer scale of damage is impossible to fully grasp.

There are two kinds of people in government: those that know it is a scam and knowingly participate and those that haven't figure it out yet. One grift is the government pension system. Not only is it a Ponzi, but it is also a way for government to skim people's savings (or steal them entirely).

The state is as much of a master of control by force as it is a master of control by manipulation. The brainwashing, gaslighting and misdirection is so strong that the masses cannot possibly hope to get out from under all the manipulative programming. The state takes over society's education to brainwash children from an early age, providing it free of charge to eliminate competition. It is very difficult to fight such a system.

People are duped into participating in predatory activities without even understanding the significance of what they are doing. The mentality of entitlement is not an accident. It is seeded by the state in the population to act as a control mechanism. People's greed is used against them. If they repent and revolt against the state, they will lose their government-provided benefits.

Don't even get me started on the "serving your country" swindle. Most states use the uniformity of society (common language, ethnicity and culture) to form the concept of "fatherland" or "motherland" in their subjects. It is an especially strong brainwashing technique because it pits ethnicity against ethnicity on a very deep level, which is very hard to overcome. The state ties its destiny to the destiny of the members of its ethnicity. The brainwashed drones blame the ethnicity of the opposite state for all of their problems when the real culprits are the states fighting each other for control of resources and causing a great deal of damage to their (mostly) innocent subjects. Sometimes states make it a point to exterminate the opposite ethnicity to further cement a sense of existential struggle in their subjects and eliminate any possibility of defection. The brainwashed participate in raping and pillaging of the opposite peoples. This creates deeply rooted multi-generational hatred between ethnic groups. They focus their energy on killing each other instead of working together for mutual enrichment.

Society can, however, have a non-criminal organization, preferably multiple competing organizations, that manage society, so long as it is voluntary, they follow the same rules as everyone else with no exceptions, they have no special privileges and the rules are not made up by anybody nor anything other than logic and reason.

## Concept #6

I would agree that property rights are extremely important, however, I believe that property is not defined correctly. I don't believe in property by claim. I only believe in property by investment of labor and capital. If you just claim something is yours then you are wrong. The part of the thing that belongs to you is the result of your labor, not the thing by itself. If someone inflicts damage on the result of your labor then they must pay you for the damage. If you exchanged your labor for someone else's labor then the fruits of their labor is now yours and vice versa. If you claim that the sun is yours and now everyone must pay you for the use of sunlight then you are a rent seeker. If a resource didn't exist and you created it, then the labor you put into making it work belongs to you and you can reasonably demand payment for your services, assuming they are accepted voluntarily. However, if someone else does something similar then they are also entitled to the fruits of their labor. You cannot claim monopoly on the production of something.

I don't believe in the existence of "intellectual property". Information should be protected by a contract. If you don't want your invention to be copied then keep it a trade secret, sign a non-disclosure contract with your customers and sue for damages if they break it. Monopolies, including intellectual property monopolies, can only exist if they are enforced by violence. Intellectual property can be used as part of a mechanism for preying on society. For example, consider patent trolling.

Intellectual property doesn't even make sense. What are property rights but an exclusive right of use? Information does not have the inconvenience of physical property, which is being unusable non-exclusively. By making a copy, I do not cause any damage to the original copy and it still can be used. Intellectual property right has less to do with property and more to do with sharing information and possibly profit from sharing information. With intellectual property laws, producing the original copy has a spooky action at a distance effect, whereby everyone else is prohibited from arranging information bits in a similar way even if they are not aware of the existence of the original copy. This is unfair. If I glean information without agreeing beforehand not to share it, I should be free to share it without any limitations. You guys are so preoccupied thinking about defending intellectual property rights of the first assembler of information that you forgot about defending the same rights of the second one, third, forth, and so on. I understand that getting rid of this "right" might cause problems for someone's business model, but so does regular competition, and we all appear to agree that is permissible.

In a free market, prices are set by supply and demand. Competition increases supply, lowering prices. What mechanism would a free market use to set a price of a patent? There isn't one. You either agree to the patent holder's licensing price or you go without. Intellectual property laws don't allow you to invent the same thing independently. If that was possible, someone might even do it for much cheaper then the first (to file!?!?) inventor and would therefore be able to ask a lower price. While you guys are busy suing each other for imaginary damages, China completely destroyed your whole business model and even used your laws against you. Now companies are forced to go about it the right way anyway and opt for trade secrets. What a joke. If you spent the same amount of effort on productive things like R&D instead of lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, there would have been much more progress and prosperity.

I will agree that there exist some types of information producing enterprises that cannot easily use contracts or trade secrets to guard against someone ripping them off. I don't have an answer for how those cases should be handled, however, one thing is certain: violence must not be used to protect their business model.

As I understand, Ayn Rand would be a proponent of intellectual property. I can reasonably conclude that she must be an apologist for statism. Only an organization such as the state can possibly defend such a misnomer as intellectual property. Allow me to put forward the idea that proponents of intellectual property are useful tools for the state, justifying its existence. It would appear consistent with Ayn Rand's redirection of the blame for societal problems from the real culprit, predatory statism, to collectivism, altruism and other more-or-less benign things.

## Conclusion

My view is that you guys are misunderstanding what is going on. The stagnation and collapse of society is brought about by over-predation, not collectivism, excessive bureaucracy, etc. It is naive to think otherwise. Your real enemy is much scarier and much more powerful than some silly socialists or unintelligent bureaucrats. The sad truth is that most productive people will live out their lives, for the most part, in service to predatory entities, regardless of whether they live under capitalism or socialism. No matter how productive you are, they are always going to find a way to squander all of your productivity and then some.

I humbly submit for your consideration my opinion that predation better explains the events in Atlas Shrugged than the explanation implied by Ayn Rand. The primary factor of human progress is not individualism, innovation, ambition, entrepreneurs, personal rights, self-interest, reason, etc. These things are certainly related. The primary factor of human progress is the inverse of the amount of predation that exists in society.

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my mind on anything said above in the event that it is proven wrong.