Rating: 
Summary: Kitsch
Review: Ayn Rands vision is best described in "American Psycho"
Rating: 
Summary: Moral case for capitalism?
Review: Now let's see: Rand was wrong about government financing, and she was wrong to be averse to "violent civil resistance" -- arguing that government requires a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force, in direct conflict with the Second Amendment specifically and the logic of federalism generally. So if we put her view of government into practice, we'd have a totalitarian State that couldn't pay for itself out of voluntary contributions, and we'd have an unarmed citizenry that wasn't allowed to resist. So the State would do . . . what? And this is moral? On what planet? (Am I the only one who sees an "Ominous Parallel" here?)She also invoked "rational selfishness" as the moral basis of capitalism, leaving out any "garbage" about the "common good." Now, that latter phrase ordinarily means the good literally common to all human beings (usually within a single society). In leaving out such "garbage," Rand would appear to have left out a powerful argument for capitalism: that it serves our _genuine_ "common good," by providing a society in which the rights of _each_ person are protected and respected. (Rand _did_ claim to have provided an "egoistic" foundation for those rights, but (a) it mostly isn't in this volume, and (b) it mostly isn't any good. I won't critique it here since it's in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.) As for "rational selfishness" as the moral foundation for capitalism: the free market provides economic checks and balances on _all_ behavior involving exchangeable goods -- including "altruistic" behavior like philanthropy and charitable contributions. As a moral foundation, "rational altruism" would have worked just as well. In fact the entire egoism/altruism dichotomy is beside the point; it's the "rational" part that's essential. (And I beg to doubt that Rand's understanding of "rationality" was adequate anyway.) Hmm. There doesn't seem to be all that much left of Rand's _moral_ case for capitalism. Nevertheless, as I've stated in my previous reviews, I still think this is her best book for quite other reasons, and she does do a fair job of cutting through some _other_ people's nonsense. Just be careful with her own.
Rating:
Summary: Outrageously Great!
Review: This is one of Ayn's best works! Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead may be more FUN to read, but once you've read them you won't want to stop there so keep on moving and READ CAPATILISM (whoops oh, my spelling!, oh dear) THE UNKNOWN IDEAL. It is great! Also reccomended: We the Living, Anthem, Philosophy Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, The Romantic Manifesto, For The New Intellectual, The New Left: Return of The Primitive, or if you can get it.. The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, and finally The Voice of Reason (this one is a collection of essays) Remember: Atlas Shrugged is probably the greatest book you will EVER read .. and the Fountainhead is a close second if not an exact tie.
Rating:
Summary: Bogus
Review: Stupidity in it's purest form. Introduces a concept of "freedom" which is truly perverse. How anyone who labels himself an "anarchist" (what a non-sense -ism...)believes there exists individual freedom in a society controlled by global corporations is truly a mystery.
Rating:
Summary: Moral Case For Capitalism
Review: For nascent Objectivists or libertarians, this work is undoubtedly the best single introduction to what's really important about capitalism. Not only does Rand et al dispell widely held myths and misconceptions about the workings of the free-market in theory and throughout history, but they also present a relentless moral case for freedom. There is no garbage about "the common good," or "the greatest benefit to the greatest number," but rather, a consistent appeal to the right of each human being to his life, liberty, and property. Moreover, not only is the case made from the simple standpoint of natural rights, but also from the more controversial framework of ethicial egoism, or, to put it more clearly, rational selfishness. Nevertheless, some of Rand's ideas concerning the actual framework of a free society are a bit off the mark, such as her scheme for financing government through a lottery or her aversion to violent civil resistance. Regardless of this, the work is solid, and I give it my highest recommendation.
Rating: 
Summary: Rights Based Capitalism Rigourously Defended
Review: This book presents a rigourous defense of capitalism from a rights based perspective, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who is interested in a non-utilitarian, pro-capitialist perspective. Captialism The Unknown Ideal dispells many of the myths of its opponants, making it both a good book for those who wish to brush up on free market arguments. Of particular interest is Greenspan's essay on Antitrust, given the current government witchhunt against Microsoft. Alienation by Branden is a refutes the aformentioned Marxian concept, while the Man's Rights Apendix lays a good foundation for Rand's rights theory. Overall, most of these essays are worthwile. Of course, as an anarchist, I take issue with a few of the ideas presented in Capitalism, especially the Nature of Government essay which totally misses the mark on anarchism and makes a weak argument against polycentric law. Nevertheless, I wholeheartidly recommend the book, radical capitalism at its (almost) finest!
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but one-sided
Review: 'Capitalism', properly understood, is simply what results when people observe the Ten Utterances. The classical-liberal 'rights to life and property' are simply another way of describing the Torah's prohibitions on murder and theft: your 'right to property' is simply my obligation to refrain from thievery (in *all* its myriad forms!). The goals of both social harmony and 'economic efficiency' are promoted, not by socialists' attempts to redesign human society in conformity with their own corrupt visions, but by observance of the Divine precepts of *justice* - of which prosperity is a beneficent side effect. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand, in her deeply ambiguous relationship with Judaism, saw fit to retain only half the truth - and without G-d at that! She did not regard religion ('mysticism') as the proper foundation for an ethical society - and she therefore replaced the revelation of Sinai with her own secular perversion thereof. But as many 'modern' people are discovering, there is no justice apart from a religious foundation, because on any other foundation there is no reason to think justice is important. If you, my fellow human being, are not made in the image of G-d but are merely an assemblage of molecules thrown together by the happenstance of purely material 'evolution', then why should I respect your so-called 'rights'? And so it becomes clear that the latter six of the Ten Utterances depend firmly on the first four. The proper basis of 'capitalism' is in the rejection of idolatry - and 'Objectivism', being a form of idolatry itself, will not help with that task. 'Capitalism' and Divine revelation stand or fall together. A world without G-d was the vision of Marx and Lenin, not of the great classical liberals.
Rating:
Summary: Moral Degradation
Review: This book is typical Ayn Rand. Written by a Nazi, for other Fascists to read. The only "moral" people upheld by Rand, are the Old Family Bankers, who have given us a nearly constant state of war somewhere in the World. The founding morals of this Nation were destroyed when a National Banking system took over. Our Nation will continue to disentegrate, both economically and morally, so long as other Fascist hail her concentration camp (Prison Industries)mentality. Each Citizen should be afraid when they realize that this Philosophy and "voodoo economics" is being propagated by a similar little brain, ie. George Bush, Bill Clinton. Read and beware, for they are gaining in power, and then the full realization of their fallacy will be brought to bear on the heads of the people.
Rating:
Summary: A slippery slope straight to Hell
Review: The best one-line critique of Rand's work: "What is good is not original, and what is original is not good." The good free-market stuff you can get from the writers Rand stole it from (and who make more sense than she does): von Mises, von Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Bastiat. The bad stuff reads like a mish-mash of Nietzsche, Marx and Hitler. A lot of young people are seduced by her glowing defense of the 'rightist' free market but then further along in her writings also fall for the 'leftist' scapegoating narcissism: we 'producers' are good and perfect (like the Aryan Nazis): the 'looters' and 'second-handers' (who don't exist in pure form) are evil (like the Jews and non-Aryans), so kill them! Then evil will disappear from Earth. The problem with Rand is to separate the good from the bad. And that is indeed a problem.
Rating:
Summary: Probably Rand's best book
Review: In an earlier review that scrolled off the page long ago, I suggested that this was Rand's best book because (a) she stuck largely to political theory and (b) had enough sense to get help with the hard parts. You can click to the next page if you want to read the rest of the review. Here I'll add that it's an important book for another reason: between the lines, it makes a tremendous concession to non-Objectivist ethics. In the opening essay, on p. 24 of the current paperback edition, Rand acknowledges that there is such a thing as "socially objective value" -- her term for what Mises would have called _subjective_ value -- and says it is this kind of value that the free market serves. In the course of discussing this sort of value, Rand concedes (with her teeth gritted) that the values appropriate for what she called "man _qua_ man_" (and here defines as "man at his best") just aren't appropriate for everybody. If this insight were followed up consistently, the whole Objectivist ethic would need to be revised from the ground up. Keep that in mind if you go on to read _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
| 
