Atlas Shrugged explained

A reader sent this link from the Wall Street Journal giving a briefing. We’ve discussed the book before. Judging from the yard sign, at least one other Brookfield resident has read it, too.

From the WSJ:

Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that “Atlas Shrugged” parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.


  1. Except that Moore was all for a bailout when it was about the banks and Wall Street?

  2. I missed your previous discussion of Atlas, so you’ll have to forgive me if I cover old ground.

    I consider myself a conservative, but I can’t stand the book. I don’t think it is good literature or philosophy.

    The fact that it is often labeled as a conservative book leaves me a little bit puzzled. Rand’s idealized man is an isolated individual whose primary purpose seems to be economic production. This strikes me as more utilitarian, and distinctly not conservative in the best meaning of the term.

    Rand is right to spotlight the potential consequences of government power in the extreme. I suspect a more gifted writer could have turned out a rather good fable with that as the moral.

    Thanks and congratulations on the 1st birthday!