How I discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism – My personal story
Posted by Maphesdus 11 years ago to Philosophy
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]
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]
Previous comments... You are currently on page 11.
Here is an excellent review of his works. I know the author of this article. He is passionate and reasonable. A graduate of Harvard Business School and West Point. And a successful writer in his own right.
http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html
You have left out that Ayn Rand opposed racism in all forms, including the racism that you endorse. In your referring only to a "chapter devoted to racism" and "opposition to the Civil Rights Act" without mentioning why, you are insinuating the utterly false misrepresentation that Ayn Rand opposed civil rights on grounds of racism, without mentioning that she strongly opposed racism in all forms and supported actual civil rights: "The policy of the Southern states toward Negroes was and is a shameful contradiction of this country's basic principles. Racial discrimination, imposed and enforced by law, is so blatantly inexcusable an infringement of individual rights that the racist statutes of the South should have been declared unconstitutional long ago..."
She consistently objected to "the demand for racial quotas in schools, with the proposal that hundreds of children, white and Negro, be forced to attend school in distant neighborhoods—for the purpose of 'racial balance.' Again, this is pure racism. As opponents of this demand have pointed out, to assign children to certain schools by reason of their race, is equally evil whether one does it for purposes of segregation or integration..."
"The 'civil rights' bill, now under consideration in Congress, is another example of a gross infringement of individual rights. It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments."
If you want to reject Ayn Rand's denunciation of racism and her support of private property rights, the right of freedom of association on private property, and other legitimate civil rights then please tell your readers what it is that you are objecting to on grounds of your own 'holistic' racism rather than falsely insinuating that she supported racism and segregation and rejected actual civil rights.
I also don't disagree with your assessment that the credit score one amasses by use of credit scores directly affects other financing opportunities. The while system is set up to encourage people to borrow money and the financiers equate the lack of a borrowing history (for better or for worse) as a ding on one's credit.
Also, one should keep in mind that the people calling in to Dave's program are rarely the people who are responsible about paying off their debts. ;) For them, a zero-tolerance policy may be the best idea.
Individualism is not "reductionism". We do not start with the concept of a group and then "reduce" it to individuals. That reduces the logical hierarchy. The concept of a 'group' is dependent on a prior knowledge of individuals and is meaningless without that. Only individuals exist as entities. Groups are abstractions regarding some number of individuals together in accordance with some relation between them. The individuals and the relations between them are real, and there are objective concepts of groups, but to "holistically" regard "groups" as the "real" and individuals as derivative is a reification of an abstraction and is invalid. Recognizing that individuals, not groups, are the unit of reality does not "blind" one to how people interact in society. Collectivist "holism" does.
oh-unless you are asian
Yes, you need to be responsible. And no, if the income to pay that off were to suddenly dry up (and it has done so twice over the past 10 years), then I certainly wouldn't be charging luxuries and discretionary items.
I've taught my children to do the same. They are just starting to fly on their own, but I've told them that when they have expenses that are greater than what they can pay off on a monthly basis, that it will be better for them to get a loan from the "bank of daddy" than elsewhere. Of course, an auto loan and a mortgage are still good things for your credit report, so those they should take out on their own.
That said, the rewards (in my case with Discover and Amex it is cash) are great, but I use my cards the way that I do for the benefit to my credit score. That garners me far more "rewards" in lower interest rates on my mortgage and auto loans than what I get from the cards themselves - and makes me far better off than if I followed the Ramsey approach. Since I'm capable of paying off my bills monthly, I could not use my cards at all (as Ramsey advises), and my credit score would be 100 to 150 pts lower and cost me significantly more in interest or likely get me rejected for a mortgage or auto loan. Instead of his simplistic advice, he should give people practical advise - use your credit like I've described, have some discipline and pay off your cards monthly, if you can't afford to do that, then you probably don't need whatever you are salivating over.
What doesn't get included is that there is an unspoken assumption that could be very dangerous: that the means by which I can terminate that monthly obligation will always be there. The principle Dave is espousing is simply to NEVER pay with borrowed money. He is taking the 100% safe road.
Soon I hope.
Decisions ultimately are individual. When you allow others to make your decisions for you, aside from being a decision, you are forfeiting your individuality. Does that mean that people don't band together to advance common causes? Surely not. But when they are doing so, they believe that the results will ultimately be in their individual favor.
I like the classical study done way back when they still had video stores. They found that a single individual usually was in and out in under two minutes. When two people went in to select a video, transaction time rose to 10 minutes. With three or more, they rarely came to a decision to rent at all! How many times have we seen that in the boardroom? How many times is a "group" decision really the result of the one or two individuals with the political power?
Can an individual decision be benefited by more than one point of view? Absolutely. Can a case be made for getting all involved parties to "buy in" to a decision? With a surety. But are the decisions themselves a product of the group? Only very rarely.
Government cannot create the motivation, simply impede it by making it tougher for the individual to succeed via taxes, regulations, etc. Even then, the individual with enough will to succeed will find a way to do so.
Regulation, properly defined, is definitely not a part of capitalism. Governments exists to protect our natural rights (Declaration of Independence), regulations infringe people's natural rights. For instance, building codes infringe my right to property and my right to contract - both are natural rights. Did you actually read Atlas Shrugged.
You clearly have not looked at the goals of environmentalists. Their stated goal is to kill 5.5 billion people, they have killed over 100 million people and they are proud of it - "there are too many people anyway."
Here is just a small selection of the evil anti-human statements by environmentalists
“Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”
— Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-di...
“Today, life on Earth is disappearing faster than the days when dinosaurs breathed their last, but for a very different reason….Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years as natural paradises, until we came along, paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. Our assault on nature is killing off the very things we depend on for our own lives….The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us, and we consume way too much, especially here at home….It will take a massive global effort to make things right, but the solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption, develop green technologies.”
— NBC’s Matt Lauer hosting Countdown to Doomsday, a two-hour June 14, 2006 Sci-Fi Channel special. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-di...
“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” http://jiminmontana.wordpress.com/2012/0...
Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,
“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.” http://jiminmontana.wordpress.com/2012/0...
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,” Turner stated in 1996.[1]
A leading environmentalist, Dr. Eric R. Pianka advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola in front of few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science who rose to their feet, and gave him a standing ovation.[2] Dr. Pianka attempted to deny this, but the evidence was overwhelming including his student evaluations.
Environmentalism is a Religion – and that religion is anti-human
Yet for women, blacks, and other minorities that venue is blocked by WASP rules that go back forever.
Why should someone be denied, if they are otherwise qualified, admittance to a playground where they can forward their business and network with other community movers and shakers?
Really? How does allowing all folks to use the same water fountain take from another?
How does allowing a same sex couple to marry take from another?
How does me carrying a firearm take from another?
How does me taking a recreational drug take from another?
Yes, some of these freedoms are not enumerated in civil rights things, but how does allowing anyone to swing their arms in any way, as long as they don't strike another, take anything away from another?
I do agree that hiring the best person for a job regardless of race, color, etc. is a good thing. However A business that denies that does so at its own risk.
Load more comments...