I think Ayn Rand did a great job pointing out the flaws and dangers of socialism and totalitarianism in this easy-to-read novel. The story shows a society that focuses on conformity ("We strive to be like all our brother men" and "that all men are one and that there is no will save the will of all men together"). I do also disagree with several parts of this novel. The main character moved from "we" to "I". There are just as many flaws with this thinking also. To me for a society to thrive and be good there needs to be public virtue (service to the community), providence, liber (learning), georgics (care and love of the land), and freedom. This book focuses just on freedom and learning along with self. I don’t see how a better world is created by focusing on ‘I’. Afterall the character moved to a home that was built and had a library, he did not do that himself, he owes the person who left things behind for him (we). Society needs both I and we. Society needs more public virtue then selfishness along with georgics instead of collectivism; freedom instead of totalitarianism and liber instead of ignorance. All five items are needed for a society not just one or two if you want the society to last.
The author writes: "There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else”.
I disagree with this definition of freedom. We are not meant to roam the world alone with no responsibility to anyone. The man character has children. I believe he is responsible to them in many ways. He created them and is responsible in providing for them. That means he must lose some of his freedoms to take care of what he created. You can't have freedom without responsibility to others. There is also no freedom from anxiety, work, or survival without community. One man roaming the world who is "free" is living very poorly and will be very lonely. In order to have freedom there must be the protection and support of the community and family. It can't just be free to do all or what you would like, there must be guards or protections in place to protect all not just one. Freedom requires responsibility or it is not truly freedom.
The author writes: "There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else”.
I disagree with this definition of freedom. We are not meant to roam the world alone with no responsibility to anyone. The man character has children. I believe he is responsible to them in many ways. He created them and is responsible in providing for them. That means he must lose some of his freedoms to take care of what he created. You can't have freedom without responsibility to others. There is also no freedom from anxiety, work, or survival without community. One man roaming the world who is "free" is living very poorly and will be very lonely. In order to have freedom there must be the protection and support of the community and family. It can't just be free to do all or what you would like, there must be guards or protections in place to protect all not just one. Freedom requires responsibility or it is not truly freedom.
RSS Feed