prior probability

(a) The Good 🙂: This is by far the most entertaining book we’ve ever read explaining the evils of communism and the hypocrisy of most intellectuals. One can choose to dismiss these “big ideas” as adolescent, simplistic, or naive, but as the histories of various revolutions have shown, radical redistribution schemes make everyone poor–everyone, that is, except for those in power. (As a further aside, if intellectuals truly favored equality, why do so few (if any) of them refuse to accept prizes or literary awards? And why are academic intellectuals responsible for perpetuating the most feudal, archaic, and anti-egalitarian domain of the modern economy? Yes, we are referring to Academia!)

(b) The Bad 😦: Although the story is a compelling one, the bad guys in Atlas are uni-dimensional, mere straw men. As a matter of fact, we would love it if someone were to rewrite Atlas–but from the point of view of the looters!

(c) The Ugly 👿: John Galt’s speech is too damn long, and the rescue mission at the end is preposterous.

For the record, below is a complete compilation of our previous posts on Atlas Shrugged:

1. Intro: Three original ideas in Atlas Shrugged.
2. Original idea #1: The Logic of Robin Hood.
3. Original idea #2: Trademarks and Coats of Arms.
4. Original idea #3: Sex and the Market.
5. Final thoughts: see items (a), (b), and (c) above.

Credit: DecoEchoes.

We interrupt our extended review of Atlas Shrugged to say a few preliminary words about Judge Brett Kavanaugh (BK). Although we were rooting for Amy Barrett, we have nothing bad to say about BK. If confirmed by the Senate, will he vote to dismantle the administrative state, overturn gay marriage, or eviscerate abortion rights? Those possible outcomes will depend on his views of precedent. But however he votes, we expect his decisions to be intellectually honest and well reasoned. By way of example, check out BK’s thoughtful essay “Fixing Statutory Interpretation,” which was published in The Harvard Law Review, Vol. 129 (2016), pp. 2118-2163, available here. Below is an extended excerpt (footnotes omitted): Continue reading →

We have been exploring the most original ideas and insights contained in Ayn Rand’s cult-classic Atlas Shrugged, such as the depiction of Robin Hood as an anti-hero and the comparison between trademarks and coats of arms. But to us, the single-most original and surprising idea by far in this epic story occurs on pp. 453-455 (Part Two, Ch. 4) of Atlas Shrugged, during a conversation between two of the leading protagonists of the story, the incorruptible North American industrialist Henry “Hank” Rearden and the mysterious Argentinian copper heir Francisco d’Anconia, who both are in love with the same woman, the heroine Dagny Taggart. (As an aside, check out the different Dagny Taggart visualizations below.) During this dramatic meeting in Francisco d’Anconia’s suite in the Wayne-Falkland Hotel–their second careo or face-to-face encounter in the story–, d’Anconia explains to Rearden the close connection between sex and ethics: Continue reading →

So much has been written about Ayn Rand’s magnum opus Atlas Shrugged that we have decided to focus on the three most original insights contained in this monumental novel. (Of course, just because an idea is novel or new does not make it true, but when evaluating a work of art, one can value originality for its own sake.) In our previous post, for example, we revisited Ayn Rand’s original, revisionist critique of Robin Hood. Today, we will explore another original idea in Atlas Shrugged, the idea expressed by one of the main characters in the novel (the Argentinian aristocrat and copper heir Francisco d’Anconia) that brands, corporate logos, and trademarks are the modern equivalent of the such bygone heraldic symbols as family crests and coats of arms. The passage in which Francisco d’Anconia makes this novel comparison appears on page 94 of the 35th anniversary edition of Atlas (Part 1, Ch. V), when d’Anconia tells Dagny Taggart, the heroine of the novel: “‘Dagny, I’ll always bow to a coat-of-arms. I’ll always worship the symbols of nobility. Am I not supposed to be an aristocrat? Only I don’t give a damn for moth-eaten turrets and tenth-hand unicorns. The coats-of-arms of our day are to be found on billboards and in the ads of popular magazines.’” Continue reading →

Is Robin Hood a good guy or a bad guy? Our previous post identified three original ideas in Atlas Shrugged. One of these is Ayn Rand’s revisionist critique of Robin Hood, the legendary outlaw who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. This counter-intuitive critique appears on pp. 532-533 of this monumental tome (all page references are to the 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, the one with an Introduction by Leonard Peikoff), or about halfway into the novel, where one of the secondary characters in the novel (the Norwegian pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld) questions the moral ideal of Robin Hood, describing him as “the most immoral and the most contemptible” anti-hero. (By the way, we begin our review of Atlas Shrugged with the Robin Hood passage because the idea expressed in this passage is central to the main thesis of the novel: government regulators are “looters” who use coercion–regulation, fees, taxes, etc.–to extort wealth from the producing class–businessmen, corporations, and self-made tycoons–to entrench their own bureaucratic positions of power.) So, without further ado, here are the words of Ayn Rand’s alter ego Ragnar Danneskjöld: Continue reading →

We have been reading Ayn Rand’s magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged.” Among many other things, her monumental novel expresses three original ideas:

1. Robin Hood was a scoundrel, not a hero.
2. Trademarks and corporate logos (see below) are the modern equivalent of coats of arms.
3. Who you make love to is an expression of what your values are.

We will elaborate on these three ideas in future blog posts.

Atlas Shrugged is a massive tome (over 1000 pages) and a cult-classic; we will post a review soon.

This beautiful map of the Florida-Georgia-Alabama line (hand-drawn by Reddit user lemastersg) has made me see my current hometown (Orlando, Fla. — Go Knights!) in a whole new geographical light!

This is our third and last post on the Wayfair case. In our previous post, we presented a “Coasean critique” of the majority’s rationale in South Dakota v. Wayfair. In brief our critique is: yes, tax loopholes are unfair to certain sectors, but guess what? Getting rid of the loophole would be unfair to others. Today, however, we explore an even deeper problem with the Wayfair case: the majority’s dangerous disregard for the doctrine of stare decisis. Continue reading →

Note: this is the second of three blog posts on the Wayfair case. (Our last post will appear tomorrow.)

In our previous post, we patiently restated the facts and identified the main legal and theoretical issues in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., the online sales tax case decided by SCOTUS on 21 June 2018. Today, we will present a Coasean (or is it Coasian?) critique of the majority opinion in this case. To appreciate our analysis, however, we need to back up and say a few words about the late economist Ronald H. Coase, the source of our “Coasean critique.” Continue reading →