ATLAS SHRUGGED (PART 1) — ReThink Review

My review of ATLAS SHRUGGED (PART 1), the first of a (supposed) trilogy based on Ayn Rand's book that has become a founding document of the conservative/libertarian movement.


For more ReThink Reviews, visit http://rethinkreviews.net/.

Follow ReThink Reviews at http://twitter.com/ReThinkReviews and https://www.facebook.com/ReThinkReviews

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• jonathan
• kim
• rethink
• reviews
• atlas
• shrugged
• ayn
• rand
• movie
• part
• conservative
• libertarian
• tea
• party
• teabagger
• free
• market
• regulations
• reardon
• metal
• taggert
• dagny
• train
• anti
• government
• tax
• taxes

[T3hBnWM3rc]

Oh my, i can't speak for the movie, but i can say i have read the book. I must admit, if the movie conveys the same message as the books, then you all have the comprehension levels of chimps at best. The title is Atlas Shrugged because they (protagonists) were altering the modern world. Its general theme is ingenuity and self fulfillment as opposed to a socialistic society promoting only advances as a whole, thus promoting self achievement, minimizing stupidity in a day and age of insipidness.

[mousadawgs]

That is by no means the plot of the story at all. You have completely distorted the plot. Rand's philosophy was not that you should not help people, but that you should not be forced to. Put simply, that which you earn, should be yours to do with as you wish. You have completely missed the point, or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

[DinkerTinker1]

Ayn Rand mentioned the need for the Government to secure peoples right to ownership, secure peoples need for safety (i e military defense, police, firefighters etc). She did support all of these things. If you read all her books you will see that this is true. So she was not against social wellfare, but she was against excessive social wellfare that wasn´t needed to support the sfatey of human individuals. She was against governments trying to direct us, when the people should direct government.

[DinkerTinker1]

So: what is the alternative to these plutocratic, evil entities and people? I am turning to the guy in the video with this question. People need to understand that capitalism is needed to fund social wellfare. Without the tax dollars that are created by productive people and companies, social wellfare would be history. Check it out yourself. I am not saying social wellfare is bad, We need a reasonable amount of it. Ayn Rand mentioned that too.

[CrazyCheeseMagee]

So what's Occupy the Movie?

[CrazyCheeseMagee]

I've gotta see this movie. It looks so hilarious for a Libertarian Socialist like me!

[confusedirishman]

Well to be fair Rand wasn't celebrating greed but I very specific type of greed which necessarily involved not violating the rights of others. What bothers me really though is the very 2-dimensional way in which you view the world.  You characterize conservatism and libertarianism as one movement and would like to think that they all worship the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I invite you to explore libertarianism further.

[T3hBnWM3rc]

@WrathOfNolla There's a difference between being in power and being productive. You have no concept of the Objectivism. Why allow parasites to eat away at your expense. Are you a troll or do you truly not understand it?? It's all about pursuit of self interest; are a bunch of pricks forcing you to give up your hard earned cash and rigorous mind for their own benefit and those they deem to need it? It's okay to not allow a nation of undeserving beings to bleed you dry.

[T3hBnWM3rc]

@WrathOfNolla How is that petty and stupid? As opposed to your views which are unproductive, greedy, and just unfair? You have NEVER read the book, or you have the literary comprehension of a chimp. They were NEVER after respect. I'm sorry, but giving looters no one to loot from wouldn't change anything? Forcing an entire world and government of insipid, lazy, beings to work for themselves for a change wouldn't alter anything? I already covered the sharing comment. There's a difference between

[T3hBnWM3rc]

He wanted to remove all of the productive victims who in that timeline, had been getting increasingly victimized to a horrible extent by the government and those who supported their actions who bought into the lies. By the way, where did you get homosexual leeches? Not because he was tired of sharing, because he was tired of getting robbed; one is willingly the other is forcibly, i would've thought even a moron could realize that. It's THEIR product, they set the prices.What dont you understand?

[WrathOfNolla]

@T3hBnWM3rc if you're referring to John Galt changing the world, then yes, he did in fact want to take all the smart people and hide them away so the rest of us can wither and die like the communist, socialist, nazi, homosexual, muslim leeches we are. And why did he want to do it? Because he was tired of having to share. He was tired of seeing people's inventions being distributed to the masses for less money than THEY would've demanded for it. Petty. Petty and stupid.

[WrathOfNolla]

@T3hBnWM3rc they in NO way attempt to change the world...by their own admission and that of Rand herself, they wanted profit, they didn't want to share, and they wanted to be respected, that's it. And boy did they show it. And....YES people who come into power often fuck the world...and your last sentence says they fuck the world. But it's ok because they carried the weight of it? I thought the Randian way was to do your job and work hard no matter how much you don't like it?