Atlas Shrugged
 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

I'll watch it, still should read the book though. Bioshock was inspired by it so I think I'll like it o:

What!!! They are making a movie?????? O.O

I read the book :p

What an absolute pantload. It's an incredibly poorly written book about an absolutely ethically bankrupt philosophy.

It is not a poorly written book. It just takes intelligence to understand.

Galt's speech/monologue is 90-some odd pages long, not to mention all of the characters are 2-dimensional at best. These are signs of a poorly written piece of fiction. You go right ahead and keep insulting my intelligence as though I don't understand it. The sheer bush-league quality of the attempted cheap shot amuses me.

I think I read somewhere that in a newer version of the book theres a much shorter speech, not sure though o:

I liked some of the ideas presented in the book, regardless of its poorly written word. Reason and thought triumph over the faithful and down right crazy. Kinda my sorta thing I guess. Yeah, the characters didn't have much depth to them. But some of the things presented and events that occurred in the book we've seen, especially within the last few years.

I also enjoyed the Fountainhead as well, the sort of prequel to Atlas Shrugged.

Finally, something we can agree on.

The idea that selfishness can help the whole has been proven wrong time and time again. Feudal system, Stock market, Reaganomics, capitalism, etc.

Oh it was about selfishness? Mmm.. "if Atlas shrugged..." leik, da world go pewww kaboom? that the idea?

or if he didn't shrug... or... mmm o-o"

Uh. Basically, it's mainly about the ideals of Rational Egoism. Republicans, basically.

An article on the philiosophy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_selfishness

I would've liked if they'd made a brave new world movie, but that would break some laws, unless they cut certain scenes out...

You've got it a bit wrong. The feudal system wasn't based on rational self interest. The king was king because he was supposedly chosen by god, which in itself is a contradiction of reason. Capitalism works very well actually, when the people who are at the top actually know what they are doing and aren't just going for a quick buck at the expense of multimillion dollar companies. Much better than the Socialist or Communist regimes of old (Stalin, Hitler, Monarchies, etc). No system is completely perfect, but to say that its wrong simply because of it not being perfect isn't accurate either.

1. I was referring to Lords and Peasants.

2. People on top never know what they're doing. Humanity gets to them. That's why communism failed. That's why capitalism has failed.

3. Socialism doesnt involve regimes for the most part. As for it failing, that's also untrue. There are still countries today that function as socialist, retaining all the freedoms of capitalism, such as canada and sweden.

Also, hitler was far from socialist. He called himself socialist to get the people's support, and then killed off all real socialists once he gained power.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145600/

It was made for TV, but it was still a decent adaptation. It does deviate from the story a bit, but it has the same central themes. The ending is a mess, though. It was good to see Nimoy play Mond.

The point of the book was not to be intertaining, but to push Ayn Rand's beliefs. (Objectivisim) Hence the 90 page radio address. Poorly written or not, She got her point across.

rofl... glad I amuse you :p

I guess we're at a cross since I'll never think socialism is a good idea. I don't see it as my moral obligation to have money stolen from me to be given to someone else so they can have health care/food/etc. Nor do I wish to be on the end of that benefit, because then I become the one who has stolen. Right now, my family isn't doing very well at all, but I still don't support the health care legislation, nor do I support programs like social security, or medicare even though I could be benefited by those programs right now. In a socialist system, government only exists to steal from one to give to another, for "the common good" as its called.

That's not entirely true. In socialism they take from everyone and give back to everyone. It's not like only the poor recieve benefits from healthcare and free college.

Surely you can see the benefit to society for having some sort of social safety net for those unable to care for themselves, mainly the sick and elderly.

^Or those born into poverty, or falling on tough times, in spite of working hard.

Not all poor are poor by choice or laziness. That's the great lie of Social Darwinism.

Ahh, despite agreeing with a lot of the philosophy of the book, I have to agree with Hrae that it's an extremely poorly written book with very bad characterization. Every character is either a complete 'good guy' or a complete 'bad guy'. However I also agree with Kaini in that the book was more meant to push objectivism than entertain as such. I was also extremely put off by the climax.



I'm not really back.