Which edition of Atlas Shrugged should I choose?

[thinksloth]

Recently I am interested in Atlas Shrugged after watching Mad Men, but I need an advice for choosing the publisher.

There have few: Penguin, PLUME, New American Library

Paper quality is my 1st priority so I hope anyone who have the book can give me some suggestions.

Thanks and sorry about my poor english.

[chrisvia]

I like the Plume editions because they are oversized and the typeface is more legible than a mass-market paperback. Also, though not exactly necessary, I would suggest reading The Fountainhead first.

Hope this helps!

[kev67]

Was Atlas Shrugged referred to in Mad Men?

[stlukesguild]

I would suggest you go with a well-edited version... such as one completely sans the text.

[thinksloth]

I like the Plume editions because they are oversized and the typeface is more legible than a mass-market paperback. Also, though not exactly necessary, I would suggest reading The Fountainhead first.

Hope this helps!

Thanks for reply~

Do oversize mean the font size or the size of the book?

Since I order from online store, I can't determine the book paper quality, thus I determine it using price tag.

In this case, price of Plume, New American Library > Penguin, then I conclude Penguin book quality not better than the others.

The fountainhead seems interesting and thanks for recommendation.

[thinksloth]

Was Atlas Shrugged referred to in Mad Men?

As I remember in season 1 ep. 8, Bertram Cooper recommend the book to Don in his office.

[thinksloth]

I would suggest you go with a well-edited version... such as one completely sans the text.

But how to know which version is well-edited? As buying from online store, I can't find which one is better.

[mal4mac]

I would suggest you go with a well-edited version... such as one completely sans the text.

I agree! It's a mistake to read a novel simply because you agree with the politics & philosophy of the author, I found that out when I tried to read Orwell's "complete novels". It's also a mistake to read a novel simply because it gets a mention on a TV programme. Do a Google search and read a few reviews... it might save you from being bored for 1000 pages.

[Anymodal]

I didn't know it, you made me curious. What is Atlas Shrugged briefly about?

[mal4mac]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

[mona amon]

I didn't know it, you made me curious. What is Atlas Shrugged briefly about?

It is a sort of dystopian novel which describes what happens when all the Captains of Industry, influenced by a mysterious John Galt, suddenly go on strike and refuse to produce anything. The moral of the story is that we really can't do without these entrepreneur types, though why Rand thought that was an issue is beyond me. Anyway, it is about a thousand pages long, so I might have left out something. :D


"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

I love it! :D

[chrisvia]

Thanks for reply~

Do oversize mean the font size or the size of the book?

Since I order from online store, I can't determine the book paper quality, thus I determine it using price tag.

In this case, price of Plume, New American Library > Penguin, then I conclude Penguin book quality not better than the others.

The fountainhead seems interesting and thanks for recommendation.

I mean to say that the book dimensions are larger than that of mass-market or trade editions.

[chrisvia]

But how to know which version is well-edited? As buying from online store, I can't find which one is better.

I think you missed stlukesguild's joke.

[kev67]

Is Atlas Shrugged the one to go for if you want to read an Ayn Rand book, for example as a companion piece posing the opposite point of view to Charles Dickens' Hard Times?

[chrisvia]

Is Atlas Shrugged the one to go for if you want to read an Ayn Rand book, for example as a companion piece posing the opposite point of view to Charles Dickens' Hard Times?

Rand certainly casts a different light on those obsessed with their own means than does Dickens. As for the first part of your question, I found The Fountainhead to be much more tolerable for gleaning an understanding of Rand's style and her philosophy of Objectivism.

[Kafka's Crow]

Q: Which edition of Atlas Shrugged should I choose?
A: None.





Read Tobias Wolff's Old School instead!

http://www.amazon.com/Old-School-Tobias-Wolff/dp/0375701494

[mal4mac]

Q: Which edition of Atlas Shrugged should I choose?
A: None.
Read Tobias Wolff's Old School instead!


Or Les Miserables, or... most anything really...

[JBI]

Or Les Miserables, or... most anything really...

Or nothing. To be honest, I would advocate not reading anything over reading Atlas Shrugged. Better off going outside for a walk - 50 times given the books length.

[WyattGwyon]

Or Les Miserables, or... most anything really...

Rand probably would have agreed with you. She thought Hugo was the greatest novelist of all time.

[Vota]

If you are interested in Reading Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, then you would be best served reading The latter first because it came before and sets the stage for the former.

Make up your own mind. Ayn Rand's novels may suck; you make completely disagree with her philosophy, but make up your own mind about it.

[mal4mac]

Life's too short to make up your own mind about *every* novel. You need to rely on recommendations from people you trust.

[Calidore]

Life's too short to make up your own mind about *every* novel. You need to rely on recommendations from people you trust.

Or, in a pinch, us. :)

[Vota]

He's asking about 1-2 specific books, not "every" book.

Trust is something I have very little of for this forum. I respect a few opinions I have read, and outright disagree with more than a few I have seen.

I would also add that if a person is even minutely motivated, they can easily find advice about which literature is considered top tier by well known scholars and literary critics, who's opinions hold alot more weight imho.

[mona amon]

Is Atlas Shrugged the one to go for if you want to read an Ayn Rand book, for example as a companion piece posing the opposite point of view to Charles Dickens' Hard Times?

I wonder what Rand would have thought of Dickens. As WyattGwyon says, she adored Victor Hugo, so Dickens - why not? I don't see Hard Times as the opposite of Atlas Shrugged. It does not have any vision of a socialist Utopia to contrast with Rand's capitalist Utopia. Dickens seems to have been in favour of government aid and social responsibility of the rich to relieve the suffering of the poor, but within the capitalistic system, something like the modern Welfare State. On the other hand, in HT he satirizes the Economic ideas of his time, particularly Utilitarianism and its reliance on facts, figures and economic theories to solve complex economic and social problems, and as far as I remember, that is what Atlas Shrugged is - an attempt to solve complex human problems with simplistic economic theories.

[mal4mac]

Trust is something I have very little of for this forum. I respect a few opinions I have read, and outright disagree with more than a few I have seen.

I would also add that if a person is even minutely motivated, they can easily find advice about which literature is considered top tier by well known scholars and literary critics, who's opinions hold a lot more weight imho.

I totally agree with this, but this is contradicting your last post! So which is it? Just read Atlas shrugged, or look up what top critics think about it? Here are some comments by top critics, who almost universally panned Atlas shrugged:

“Atlas Shrugged left me cold. To me it had the intellectual level of a pulp science-fiction novel. It was absurdly long and it was boring.” - Gary Weiss

“Ayn Rand was a writer of no value whatsoever, whether aesthetic or intellectual. The Tea Party deserves her, but the rest of us do not. It is not less than obscene that any educational institution that relies even in part on public funds should ask students to consider her work. We are threatened these days by vicious mindlessness and this is one of its manifestations.” - Harold Bloom

Bloom here is probably referring to the fact that corporate money is contractually mandating the reading and teaching of Rand at publicly funded universities. This is a ploy by rich CEOs and bankers to make their ridiculous wage levels and bonuses look acceptable in a world where children starve and can't get basic medical aid.

Brian Leiter, director of the Center of Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago called the book “badly written and simple minded.”

Note that besides being a really bad novelist she was a total hypocrite:

"Ayn Rand built her Objectivist philosophy that permeates today’s Tea Party around individual self interest and eliminating government run social welfare programs, but she herself was on Medicare and Social Security."

"Even after the attack at Pearl Harbor, Rand was against the U.S. entering World War II. She viewed government force as evil, but her own followers were regularly purged, shunned and vilified."

The Ayn Rand Institute peddles books to young minds, here's one of their speakers at a convention: “Every English teacher in the United States gets an offer from us. If they will teach Ayn Rand’s books, we will deliver as many copies as they need for free. When we initially started this program we had a few thousand of the books sent out. Today we’re shipping three hundred and fifty-thousand copies of the books a year.”

Weiss on this: “It was as ambitious a program of mind-reprogramming as one could find outside of North Korea and science- fiction movies. Americans are said to be resistant to indoctrination and heavy-handed ideology. Yet here we had a gathering of apparently reasonable, intelligent Americans, applauding their hands raw about the prospect of young people being force fed the works of an ideologue far outside of the American mainstream.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/27/ayn-rand-the-tea-partys-miscast-matriarch/

Rand's books have no purpose except to promote the economic interests of the rich extremists bankrolling their production; save yourself a really bad reading experience, save yourself being brainwashed by bankers, give Rand a miss.

[Vota]

I wasn't really contradicting my previous post. What I said was in response to, "Life's too short to make up your own mind about *every* novel. You need to rely on recommendations from people you trust."

I made it clear that I do not put a lot of trust or weight in people's opinions on this board. There are no credentials posted, and any that may be posted could be easily fictitious. Moreover, there are some impressively pretentious people on this board, as shown by their eagerness to pounce on trivialities and jokes(speaking from experience). My point was to make sure one considers how credible their sources are, in this case opinions and reviews of books from anonymous people on this forum. I read and consider opinions from people with some credibility, but that doesn't mean I will agree with them or decide not to read a book they don't like. I would have missed out on quite a few movies that I enjoyed if I went by what some critics think.

I understand what Rand's books are generally about, but I have not read them, and I suspect that many of the people bashing the books have not read them, in their entirety, because you can't say you have really read a book unless you have actively read ALL of it. This doesn't make the book any better, and reading the entire book doesn't mean one will agree or like it, but you can't truly make comments on a work you only have heard others talk about. I'm not saying this is the case with you and others here that vehemently discourage reading her books, but I do suspect this is common.

I would actually recommend people read the book, so they really know whats between the covers and can have a serious debate about it's faults with any potential pro-Rand fan. It's easy to grab some snippets or make some comments, but all someone has to say is, "have you read the book?" In response many people would say, err, well no I haven't, in which case the other person would be mostly correct in saying, "then you don't really know what you're talking about, but spouting off what you have heard others say."

Not sure if that came across very coherently, but that's the long version of what I meant.

[mal4mac]

I read and consider opinions from people with some credibility, but that doesn't mean I will agree with them or decide not to read a book they don't like. I would have missed out on quite a few movies that I enjoyed if I went by what some critics think.

Good point, you have to take account of the views of several critics, and use your own experience & personal taste to filter those views. But can you imagine anyone pursuing that process properly and deciding that Rand should be read?



I would actually recommend people read the book, so they really know whats between the covers and can have a serious debate about it's faults with any potential pro-Rand fan.


Is this necessary? Isn't there enough criticism out there to put off any cultured person? Have you read all the novels that critics applaud? Have you read all the novels by authors you love? Why not read them first, and after that read Rand (i.e., never read Rand.)

[Vota]

I guess is depends. I have both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. My initial interest came from exposure I received from reading an old school bodybuilders books, Mike Mentzer. I have long since moved past his theories, though I still find them to have a certain level of merit, though they trivialize the complexity of the human body. I plan to read these two books of Rand's at some point. For all I know, I might enjoy the read even if I disagree with the philosophy. That's for me to decide. Now these books aren't my top priorities to read as their are currently a couple hundred ahead on the list, but they may shoot up higher on the ladder at some point.

I guess I just refuse to not read a book because other people, even people who's opinions have weight, say it sucks or is brain washing propoganda, "if" for whatever reason, I have an interest to read it. Hell, I'll read it purely because people recommend not reading it because I find that interesting.

[stlukesguild]

I made it clear that I do not put a lot of trust or weight in people's opinions on this board.

It seems to me that credibility is something that is earned... and this requires experience: experience on the part of the individual whose reputation is in question and the requisite experience of the audience (you) in developing an opinion of the worth of others' opinions.

There are no credentials posted, and any that may be posted could be easily fictitious.

Credentials? You want formal degrees? MAs PhD.s? You do understand that there are individuals... including some here... who have read more and better than many degree-holding professors or critics. As for "fictitious" credentials, it is quite easy with experience to discern who does or does not know about a subject of current debate.

Moreover, there are some impressively pretentious people on this board...

Certainly there are... but inflated ego and pretentiousness are not proof that an individual is inexperienced in a given topic.

Before you begin to judge others here (or elsewhere) I would suggest you would do well to get to know the individual.

[Vota]

I've only made one specific negative judgement about a forum member here, and as far as I am concerned from what I have seen, my judgement is pretty spot on.

I'm sure there are plenty of individuals here that have read more than many known scholars and critics have, just as I am sure that having read a lot does not necessarily make one "well-read".

I was a member of a MAJOR bodybuilding/powerlifting/what-have-you forum for years and I have seen some impressive fabrications and lies, so ya, I tend to be very critical of people's supposed credentials, experiences etc. I can easily tell if someone can talk the talk, but there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. I know thats cliché, but it comes from my background in exercise forum experiences.

Before you assume how quick I am to judge people(and my judgments or gut feelings tend to be pretty accurate) you might hold off on the patronizing comments.

[stlukesguild]

The one person that you have offered a negative judgment of... at least from what I have stumbled upon on the site... is JBI. Quite honestly, JBI can be one arrogant son of a female dog... but he is also one of the the most brilliant and best-read members on this site. If you were to ask about on site you would likely find that a great majority would concur with my judgment. Of course you can always assume that I am defending JBI as part of some imagined clique on the site... but to tell the truth, I have engaged in disputes with him as much as anyone here. Anyone can question his opinions, but they guy's "credentials" are wholly legit. He knows literature as well as almost anyone I know and is rapidly working toward the terminal formal credential (degree).

[Vota]

I truly, truly, do not care about JBI and his fan club, as you label it. Most of my comments were not directed at him specifically and I'm sure he could care less what I think of him, as it should be.

Thanks.

[luhsun]

Vota talked about pallbearers in his seminal poem and jbi obliged.

[Vota]

I'm only going to say this once in plain English. To automatically assume someone, joking around, who posted an anachronistically cheesy poem, composed in seconds, posted it as their seminal work with the intent to display the fullest reach of their ability is hilariously presumptuous.

I'm surrounded by genius.

[kittypaws]

:Yawn:

[Vota]

This forum is a piece of work.

Say goodnight to the bad guy!

P.S. NICE edit.

[ennison]

Buy a second-hand paperback so that you won't feel bad binning it at the end. For some reason my youngest ploughs his way through Rand but then he reads Lovecraft too. Maybe it's that generational lack-of-experience thung.

[kev67]

I wonder what Rand would have thought of Dickens. As WyattGwyon says, she adored Victor Hugo, so Dickens - why not? I don't see Hard Times as the opposite of Atlas Shrugged. It does not have any vision of a socialist Utopia to contrast with Rand's capitalist Utopia. Dickens seems to have been in favour of government aid and social responsibility of the rich to relieve the suffering of the poor, but within the capitalistic system, something like the modern Welfare State. On the other hand, in HT he satirizes the Economic ideas of his time, particularly Utilitarianism and its reliance on facts, figures and economic theories to solve complex economic and social problems, and as far as I remember, that is what Atlas Shrugged is - an attempt to solve complex human problems with simplistic economic theories.

Interesting, I was going to say a utopia of any sort would not be very interesting to read about, but you say Rand had written about a capitalist utopia? I agree about Dickens being in favour of the rich bearing their responsibility towards the poor and on government aid. He was no socialist. I am not adamant I understand pefectly what Utilitarianism means, but I thought what Dickens was criticizing sounded more like Rand's Objectivism. Utilitarianism was promoted by sweet, lovely guys like John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. I suppose there is the argument that Utilitarianism allows the calculation that 20,000 workers living miserable lives in a polluted town might be outweighed by the improved quality of life of 10,000,000 people who could not afford their products otherwise. It still does not sound like what Dickens was criticizing.

I am intrigued by Ayn Rand, but her books are very long. I would not want to dedicate my next two month's fiction reading to one of her books if it turns out to be a slog.

[kev67]

Buy a second-hand paperback so that you won't feel bad binning it at the end. For some reason my youngest ploughs his way through Rand but then he reads Lovecraft too. Maybe it's that generational lack-of-experience thung.

Is H.P. Lovecraft evil too?

[ennison]

Naw just goddam awful

[Jackson Richardson]

I mean to say that the book dimensions are larger than that of mass-market or trade editions.

The joke being it's not worth reading. From everything I've heard, and the one (deeply unpleasant) person who admired Rand, I'd agree. I'm sticking to reading a true old fashioned Tory, Sir Walter Scott.

[chrisvia]

In response to the question of whether to read Rand or not, I can say that, though I read her two widely heralded novels, I would never read her work again--there's just too much rich literature out there. The reason I read them in the first place was more out of necessity due to a critical survey of American literature in the 1900s.

[kev67]

I noticed a member of staff at a local bookshop had put The Fountainhead on the table of staff recommended books, so some people obviously rate her stuff.

[MorpheusSandman]

I read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged many, many years ago before I knew a thing about Rand's politics, or, indeed, politics in general because I was, I'm almost ashamed to admit, intrigued by the titles. At the time, I remember them being quite dull, yet occasionally intriguing. I finished them with no desire to read them again, and it was only years later when I gained greater experience and appreciation for literary aesthetics and political philosophy that I could declare both of the novels completely worthless.


I was a member of a MAJOR bodybuilding/powerlifting/what-have-you forum for years and I have seen some impressive fabrications and lies, so ya, I tend to be very critical of people's supposed credentials, experiences etc. I can easily tell if someone can talk the talk, but there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. I know thats cliché, but it comes from my background in exercise forum experiences.I don't see the connection myself. In bodybuilding there is a profound difference in knowing VS walking the path, but when it comes to literature there is only, really, "knowing the path." What's more, you can only, really discern how much someone knows of literature by reading what they write, whether that's via an internet message board or in a book published by Harvard makes no difference. I guess the equivalent of "faking credentials" on a message board would be talking about authors/books one hasn't read, or maybe just making stuff up, lying, misrepresenting/misunderstanding facts, etc., but the types that do this are usually quickly called out by those that know better. Really, I don't encounter those types much on literature or film forums because there's not much incentive to do it; I really only encounter that kind of "faking credential" stuff on religious/philosophy message boards where, eg, people that no squat about science try and attack it to defend their beliefs (we've had some of this on the philosophy and religion message boards here, with a certain poster continuing to post about Quantum Mechanics while knowing nothing about it). Since so much in art is about personal opinions and not facts there's less reason to pull the kind of deceitful stunts that Creationists do.

[Ecurb]

It seems to me that credibility is something that is earned... and this requires experience: experience on the part of the individual whose reputation is in question and the requisite experience of the audience (you) in developing an opinion of the worth of others' opinions....



Certainly there are... but inflated ego and pretentiousness are not proof that an individual is inexperienced in a given topic.

Before you begin to judge others here (or elsewhere) I would suggest you would do well to get to know the individual.

I wonder how many of the posters disparaging Rand's novels have actually read them. Or are they discouraged by Rand's "inflated ego and pretentiousness"?

[Poetaster]

I wonder how many of the posters disparaging Rand's novels have actually read them. Or are they discouraged by Rand's "inflated ego and pretentiousness"?

I read Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness after wanting to know more about Objectivism thanks to that video game Bioshock. I agree with her detractors, Ayn Rand just was not a very good writer, and after a month the charms of her philosophy seemed to disappear too.

[Ecurb]

I've read "Atlas Shrugged", too. I barely remember it -- I read it when I was a teenager -- and I've never been tempted to read more (although I've dabbled in some of her philosophy, for the sake of argument). Nonetheless, Rand had an inflated ego, a pretentious, supercilious personality, and a strangely bizarre philosophy that reflected (or perhaps influenced) her personality. I don't doubt that many people who disparage her novels have never read them. I was merely pointing out the irony in stluke's post.

[stlukesguild]

Like you and Morpheus I read Rand quite some time ago... and have never had any desire to read her work again. I'm not certain who or how many are put off by her "inflated ego and/or pretentiousness". This description might be aptly applied to any number of artists, writers, and composers that I greatly admire.

[mal4mac]

I noticed a member of staff at a local bookshop had put The Fountainhead on the table of staff recommended books, so some people obviously rate her stuff.

Why do you rate bookshop staff so highly?

[Poetaster]

I've read "Atlas Shrugged", too. I barely remember it -- I read it when I was a teenager -- and I've never been tempted to read more (although I've dabbled in some of her philosophy, for the sake of argument). Nonetheless, Rand had an inflated ego, a pretentious, supercilious personality, and a strangely bizarre philosophy that reflected (or perhaps influenced) her personality. I don't doubt that many people who disparage her novels have never read them. I was merely pointing out the irony in stluke's post.

I understand that, and you are right too. 'Hating on' Ayn Rand has been pretty fashionable lately.

[kev67]

Why do you rate bookshop staff so highly?
Because I suspect one of the reasons they get the job is that they can demonstrate an interest in books. Rather like the staff in a specialist running kit shop all tend to be runners, or staff working in a camping gear shop tend to be hikers and outdoor people.

[Ecurb]

One more thing: although Rand is neither a good novelist nor a good philosopher, I don't see anything wrong with someone reading her novels (or her philosophy). She remains influential -- foreigners might not be aware that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan named her as his favorite philosopher. Her novels are melodramatic, and her philsophy turgid -- but melodrama and overblown philosophy are more fun than other forms of mediocre literature. So I don't think reading Rand is a waste of time (although I don't think going for 50 long walks is a waste of time, either).

[kev67]

One more thing: although Rand is neither a good novelist nor a good philosopher, I don't see anything wrong with someone reading her novels (or her philosophy). She remains influential -- foreigners might not be aware that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan named her as his favorite philosopher. Her novels are melodramatic, and her philsophy turgid -- but melodrama and overblown philosophy are more fun than other forms of mediocre literature. So I don't think reading Rand is a waste of time (although I don't think going for 50 long walks is a waste of time, either).

I am aware she is still influential. I watched a television documentary about her a couple of years ago. Many American entrepreneurs, in particular it seems those in Silicon Valley, like her books. Like the philosophers of old, she had her own school of acolytes, including Alan Greenspan, the former head of the US federal reserve. I think she must have gone out and then come back into fashion after she died, because she ended up so poor she had to rely on state aid and medical care.

[mona amon]

Interesting, I was going to say a utopia of any sort would not be very interesting to read about, but you say Rand had written about a capitalist utopia? I agree about Dickens being in favour of the rich bearing their responsibility towards the poor and on government aid. He was no socialist. I am not adamant I understand pefectly what Utilitarianism means, but I thought what Dickens was criticizing sounded more like Rand's Objectivism. Utilitarianism was promoted by sweet, lovely guys like John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. I suppose there is the argument that Utilitarianism allows the calculation that 20,000 workers living miserable lives in a polluted town might be outweighed by the improved quality of life of 10,000,000 people who could not afford their products otherwise. It still does not sound like what Dickens was criticizing.

I am intrigued by Ayn Rand, but her books are very long. I would not want to dedicate my next two month's fiction reading to one of her books if it turns out to be a slog.

No, no, most of the book is about a world where everything is slowly going to the dogs because of government control, altruism, and stuff, and then the process is speeded up as the Captains of Industry start abandoning their businesses one by one and disappearing mysteriously, so it is mostly a dystopian novel. Whatever she may lack as a writer, she was smart enough to save her Utopia for what is going to happen after the book is closed. Like most people here, I read it when I was a teenager, and if you are curious about the book I'd say go for it. It's a very easy read, not at all boring except for the 70 page long speech at the end, and doesn't take much time to read despite its length.


I thought what Dickens was criticizing sounded more like Rand's Objectivism.

They are all quite connected - Benthamite Utilitarianism did not challenge the already existing liberal economic thought of the time, which was basically the free market liberalism of the classical economists, mainly Adam Smith. There's really nothing Ayn Rand has to say that hasn't already been said in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations written some 200 years before Rand came into the scene.

Dickens I think was satirizing the Utilitarian philosophy itself (the greatest happiness of the greatest number" isn't going to be of much use to those who do not fall into the 'greatest' category - "And my remark was — for I couldn't think of a better one — that I thought it must be just as hard upon those who were starved, whether the others were a million, or a million million. And that was wrong, too." - Sissy Jupe, Chapter 9), as well as the tendency of political economists, the Utilitarians included, to try and make an exact science out of a social science with the use of logic, statistical figures and mathematical formulae to prove their theories, ignoring the human beings behind the statistics.

[kev67]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Great post as usual.

[mona amon]

Thanks, Kev! :blush: