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


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Apparently you do...

    We have a structure for creating 'regulation'.

    It is defined in the Constitution.

    The power to 'regulate' is left to Congress, not the executive branch.
    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.
    This is why I'm adamantly opposed to Objectivists. You would cut off your noses to spite your faces. Like socialists, you insist upon only considering ideals, and to hell with the real world.

    What the LGBT "community" feels should be of no concern to an *Objectivist*. After all, Objectivism is all about reason, not emotion.

    As for "marriage rights" in the Constitution... 9th Amendment. And homosexuals share that same right... they can find a willing member of the opposite sex and marry them.

    And if homosexuals can force the rest of us to recognize their mental/emotional illness as legitimizing "same sex marriage"... then I can pick out any number of people to force to marry me so I can exercise my equal right to get married.

    Only I want to redefine marriage as, "Tuesday night pinochle tournaments".
    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.
    "How does allowing a same sex couple to marry take from another? "

    because, by definition "same sex" and "marry" are contradictory. You're one sex short and one sex too many.

    It requires the normal, sane people to accept an insanity as rational. "Same sex marriage" is not about equality; homosexuals can marry just as anyone else can, provided they find a willing member of the opposite sex. "Same sex marriage" is about legitimizing a mental/emotional illness.

    But the most fallacious of you statements is to translate almost immediately from "... one group" into "me". You go from defining individuals by one of their shared characteristics to acknowledging the uniqueness of each individual.

    Try going from not allowing people of a certain race to use a store's bathrooms... to not allowing non-customers to use a store's bathrooms.

    Try charging for using a bathroom... that certainly denies the use of the bathroom to the indigent. Yet the owner of the bathroom should have a perfect right to charge for its use (after all, its upkeep costs him money), or to deny its use to non-customers, or essentially to offer or deny its use based upon whatever criteria strikes his or her fancy. That's the nice thing about owning property.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    And you want to abolish all regulation entirely and live in a state of lawless anarchy where there are no guarantees of safety and people have no ability to defend themselves against others. I get it.
    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.
    "Really? How does allowing all folks to use the same water fountain take from another?"

    Clean the bathrooms at Wal-mart some time and I'll explain it to you.
    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.
    You are saying that apples and oranges should be eaten the same way.

    Correction: you are saying that apples and hemlock should be eaten the same way.
    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 common law rule of innocent until proven guilty,"

    Innocent UNLESS proven guilty. Only one bite at the apple, please...
    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.
    You gotta stop that breathing in and out, or else I might breathe in some air that contains a virus you housed for a period of time, and I could sicken and possibly die, or even be inconvenienced....

    /sarc
    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.
    I've been trying to correct this with any number of people.

    I'm going to put it in caps so it stands out:

    WHEN REFERRING TO A MEMBER REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES, IT IS PROPER TO CAPITALIZE THE WORD "STATE".

    WHEN REFERRING TO A COUNTRY, NATION OR OTHER SUCH SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO USE LOWER CASE FOR THE ENTIRE WORD "state".

    The reason why this is important is... 2nd Amendment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I know...that's what I just said (minus the bogus "persecution" bit.) I think discrimination (in the way of refusing business, not the actual kind) is deserving of force. Essentially you want the gov to MAKE us think a certain way, and not have control over our own lives or businesses...WE GET IT MAPH.
    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.
    Not really, no. I recognize that certain limitations on government power are necessary, and that most laws and regulations need to be decided at the local level rather than the national level. I'm just opposed to the idea of anarchy, that's all.
    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.
    What I support is anti-discrimination legislation. The purpose of government is to protect people's natural rights. I believe people have a natural right to be free from discrimination and persecution. Therefore, government is justified in protecting that 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.
    Since Sunday I've been wearing my "20th Century Motor Corporation" cap to work. Today was the day we changed managers... to the one who's read "Atlas Shrugged"... she knows that I put it on when I'm being asked to do less of a quality job than I want. When I feel that incompetence is being rewarded and competence and ambition are being punished...

    When I explained to her why I put my hat back on, her reaction was between shock and indignation. Perhaps she'll change things. We'll see.

    Unfortunately, when I go back to work Sunday night, I believe she'll be off and I'll be wearing my cap again...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Fred the result of all regulations is to stifle inventiveness, which lowers quality and increases costs. This has proven true in the US where building codes have resulted in substandard and expensive housing. Designs get locked in by the building codes and the largest companies make sure it is their products that are locked in. We are so brain washed in the US, we think it is a good thing that housing prices increase. The reason they are increasing is because of building codes, zoning laws, and inflation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    So it's going to take me a while to go through that list, but to make things short, here's what I would say about business (and I would like to think that my 20+ years and MBA lend some credence to my observations):

    Decision-making is not a group effort in any of the companies I've worked with or for - from Fortune 50 to small or large private firms. There is always a champion attempting to persuade others to follow them.

    Businesses are just exactly that: a champion starts a business in the belief that they can satisfy a market demand better than one's competitors - that is to say they believe they can more closely align with their customers' value assessments of a given transaction. Both parties receive individual benefit from the transaction.

    Then the business grows and multiple people begin to get involved in the transaction. Ultimately, however, each person involved commits to the transaction in their own way because they evaluate their participation in such on an individual level. Sometimes it can merely be the understanding of adverse consequences: "if I don't sell this person that new iPhone, I'll lose my job." The other end of the scale is "if I sell this person that new iPhone, I'll receive a commission". In the end, however, the decision is still personal - not the result of a group.

    "The fact that Ayn Rand never owned or operated her own business also tells me that her theories had no real world experience to support them, and therefore they should be viewed with heavy skepticism."

    The reason we take advice from an experienced individual with more trust that an inexperienced individual is precisely because they have performed the experiment and seen the results, is it not? I think it is healthy to question someone who has no personal experience in the matter, but one must also take caution not to totally dismiss that person's thought just because one has no experience unless there is ample evidence to oppose the theory. That takes us into the realm of prejudice (by very definition) but is a very tough line to walk.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think we have a clear understanding that Maph has read Atlas Shrugged, along with many others on this site.
    I look at trolls like this. Are they disrupting the site? Are they purposely antagonizing people trying to get them into fights. ex: using ad hominem etc?. Maph, for the most part, is extremely civil and respectful. Are they trying to get off on side issues in every post? This is Maph's post, he's not taking it over. He's got a major issue that he likes to stick on, which is irritating at times-but trolls tend to go off on many issues and posts and are always negative and misrepresenting. Trolls are very disrespectful. People get to a point where they won't engage anymore. Trolls do not offer original content. Most commenters on this site have engaged with Maph, in heated debates and otherwise. He creates original content. Maph, you are being particularly obstinate on your own post here, and have crossed over into emotional realm which means in order to keep the argument going you are mis characterizing and so therefore you have lost some influence. Ultimately, Maph's points do give him some cred on the site. If the site administrators thought he was a troll, they would not put his posts in the Daily Digest. I can assure you. Maph makes the daily with some regularity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    This has nothing to do with "agreeing on everything", and repeated misrepresentation is not "disagreement" or "debate". A lot of people like Atlas Shrugged while not agreeing with "everything" or "certain aspects". That is not the same as constantly misrepresenting it and Ayn Rand, while trashing Ayn Rand's knowledge and ability and promoting collectivism, very rarely mentioning liking the movie in a large volume of commentary. The Gulch website can take money from whom ever it pleases, but Maphesdus paying a "$3.95 a month ... membership fee" is not to "belong to a site that promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged and facilitates communication between like-minded individuals".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hmmm. May be a bit too harsh here. Medical science is a bit more straightforward than business, which often requires trade-off analysis and risk assessment about unknowns. Someone who has successfully navigated those issues has something to convey that a "book learned only" person cannot convey. I'll take business advice from the owner of the corner grocery store that has a track record over the likes of Krugman or Marx any day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    True. J. Paul Getty says the same thing in his book How To Be Rich. Much better advice in his book. Of course, unlike Kiyosaki, he earned his fortunes before writing the book. Kiyosaki only appears to have actually been financially successful BY writing his books.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I've never read Kiyosaki, but one take away from excerpts that I've seen that does ring true is that you'll never get "rich" working for someone else. You can live a very good lifestyle working for others (as I have), but if being rich is your objective you need to work for yourself. Just don't expect that doing so will guarantee you riches - far more independent business people go broke/stay poor than get rich.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo