This is a really inappropriate retrospective on a book. Nobody cares about the Brandens’ conflict with Ayn Rand anymore. It’s none of my business and I feel awkward and embarrassed for the Brandens every time I read about it.

The only question left to ask is why is the Ludwig von Mises Institute publishing commentary like this on its blog? A private falling out between has absolutely nothing to do with Austrian Economics or Ludwig von Mises.

(my comment was addressed to the previous commenter)

Like most people, I read Atlas Shrugged long before knowing the personal struggles of its writer. It remains an important influence in my life despite Rand’s flaws. While I agree this tribute had really nothing to do with economics, knowing that many of its readers are also influenced to some extent or another by Rand, it does seem appropriate to share with us.

Also, I think that many people here suffer from the same kind of frustrations as did Ayn Rand. Austrian views depart sharply from what the broader society is willing to accept. Many Austrians are intensely passionate about their views and are disappointed to see them rejected.

I’m not one for the tragically heroic figure though. Though completely allegorical to me, the brightest characters in Atlas Shrugged were able to create their own worlds full of meaning. Indeed, it was a central theme to the story that a person could (and even should) live to their own ends and that they could do so despite a depraved society.

After having written this little bit, I retract somewhat my assertion that this article has nothing to do with economics. Economics, in the tradition of the LvMI, is concerned with studying human action aimed at securing personal wants; in a word, happiness. It is significant to consider the unfulfilled life of a person who wrote so passionately about subjects that we think should secure happiness.

Prophets are despised by the powers that be. Although Rand’s writings are works of fiction and only present one of a multitude of possibilities, it is the idea that so riles the pseudo-intellectuals.

As to “Atlas Shrugged” and Rand having nothing to do with economics, wow! It appears obvious to this writer that some folks have elevated Austrian Economics to the level of religion and therefore any works of fiction have no place on their bookshelf despite any intellectual what-if scenarios that could exist in the realm of possibility.

Few would argue that the US and world economy is in the dumpster. By the same token, few realize that inflation adjusted earnings have fallen for at least a couple decades. It doesn’t take much imagination to visualize the possibility of the inovators and technologists getting fed up and using some of their earnings/investments to relocate to a rural environment and just retire. It is already happening.

Mayhaps the problem is one of fear. What if the basic scenario is playing out? Our largest export, according to the Dept of Commerce, is licensing and royalties. What will happen with the brain drain? Many of our most brilliant have aged out of the labor market. The individual has been replaced by teams partly due to greater complexities inherrent to technology but also by the loss of the free-thinker willing to think outside the box and having the R&D budget to work with.

I see the problem as one of not reading the right stuff. It is easy to specialize yourself into obsolescence. Tis but my opinion, but I have seen the decline of reading first-hand and it appears that what is being read is purely for entertainment purposes.

Of course I have read many a sci-fi novel and enjoy the unique presentation of exciting what-if technological gizmos. Many, including my mother, catagorized sci-fi as nonsense. I watch people pulling out their cell-phones and I see the “Star Trek” communicators actualized.

I suppose this is one of the reasons comic books and pulp romantic fiction are so popular. Oh well, it was the Circus of ancient Rome that kept the mindless minions entertained.

“Atlas Shrugged” was the fictional antithesis of Marxist economic theory and and holds a place next to Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” on my bookshelf. At least it has more plausibility than any works of fiction coming out of the Federal Reserve.

Time will tell all tales. “Atlas Shrugged” is all about economics. I have little doubt that many read the commentaries by modern economic pundits that foresee doom and gloom. Ayn Rand’s only fault was writing fiction and presuming that her potential readers had the mental capacity to imagine what-if.

I tend to think her despair in her aging years was derived from her belief that the reader would grasp the economic potential for what is now happening. No, I am not Randian or anything else for that matter. I observe and ponder. Who is making money for producing the least? Has there been any increases in government sponsored social programs? And again, have after-tax wages for the most productive increased as fast or faster than inflation?

Make up your own mind and then ask, “Did Ayn Rand describe what happens when politicians put social needs ahead of productivity?” If you cheat the farmer from their due wages, your belt size will get smaller.

Every redistribution of assets and debts cheats the most productive the most. It is Marxist economics and this is what Rand railed against. Yes, this article has a place on Mises.org.

@Franklin

“Sometimes, there seemed to be too much thematic suggestion of the “superman” and not enough with the “everyman.”

Yeah, all this talk about the capitalist as a demi-god sort of left everyone else out of the picture. Pretty distant from the view of constructing human existence from the bottom up, through the common man.

I aver that it is pertinent to discuss Ayn Rand on this blog, for she and von Mises have much in common. They made monumental achievements in their field, and in each case the world rejected their outlooks in favor of destructive approaches. Both also erred by treating their views as sufficient for dealing with broader issues: Wertfrei economics is insufficient for covering economic policy (let alone foreign policy); Objectivism is insufficient for dealing with philosophical issues that are not yet verifiable.

To clarify, I quote a few statements of von Mises: “There is, no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust”; “It makes no difference where the frontiers of a country are drawn”; “All men…want the same things in this world. They want to protect their own life and the lives of their kin against damage and they want to increase their material well-being.
Mises is an admitted utilitarian, which is fine for dealing within Wertfrei economics, but not for understanding the moral realm, or the motives of man, which are imperative for dealing with policy.

Now our topic is “Atlas Shrugged at Fifty” so let me explain why I find Ayn Rand excellent within Objectivism, but faulty in dealing beyond it.

My Love-Hate Relation to Objectivism

I have consistently found Objectivism to be enlightening and frustrating. It shows great promise, and then snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. It is reminiscent of Icarus, who obtains the gift of flight, but travels too close to the sun, and crashes down to earth.

Let me demonstrate.

A tabula rasa is established that is epistemologically sound, providing an axiomatic basis for establishing certitude. Then it is interpreted as though no other basis can exist for understanding, thereby discarding much that is plausible from a-priori and a-posteriori foundations. (Note that nowhere in the axiom system has one shown that validity can only derive from these axioms.)

Objectivism opposes superstition, subordinating it to reason. Then it denies those benefits that have accompanied superstition, thereby discarding reality. Similarly, it emphasizes rigorous thought, but goes on to deny the value in concepts that remain to be perfected, including intuitive and poetic notions. Objectivism establishes what is known, but then presumes that this overrides what must be learned, which is generally where the action is. Similarly, it establishes many concepts that are exactly right, but then argues against the existence of concepts which depart from exact replication, such as models. It also establishes absolute principles, but then claims that all principles are absolute.

It is established that the purpose of government is to secure man’s rights. This is then interpreted as being the sole function, overlooking that for millennia governments have had to ensure that neither the country nor its society would be undermined by barbarism.

Objectivism establishes the primacy of ideas, emphasizing the imperative of dealing with national issues in terms of the beliefs involved. Then it downplays the lessons of strategy and tactics, because of their pragmatic and engineering orientation. Consequently, it does not seize conceptual leadership, but establishes a sectarianism that precludes alliances.

Objectivism correctly disparages racial, religious and national hatreds, but then disregards cultural heritage, which is correlated with race, religion, and nationalities.

The lesson of Icarus is that what is good is lost by attempting to go too far. The antidote is to treat one’s gifts as an evolving part of life, thereby allowing other parts to enter. This includes the notion that while man can be glorious, he still ought to allow for his limitations.

In sum, both Wertfrei economics and Objectivism are fine disciplines, but are insufficient for dealing with what is beyond these disciplines.

Two years to write 60 pages?

Some day I’ll have to read _Atlas_. Not sure I need to, having read so many people’s talking about it.

Sort of, “ok, I get it, don’t need to get it again.”

I’m an Objectivist, not a “Randian” (whatever that is) and I have a VERY STRONG GRIP!