“Don’t Blink” a review of the new movie “Atlas Shrugged, Part I”

Today, I attended a pre-release screening of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 in Washington DC.  As many fans of Ayn Rand’s monumental work of the same name, I had approached the release of the film with both excitement and a touch of anxiety.  This is not just some Hollywood film to be liked or not liked–this film is being measured by a virtually impossible standard of living up Miss Rand’s genius.  After some brief comments by the film’s producers and a few other folks, the packed theater went stone silent as the screen came to life.

The first few minutes are spent laying the “background” to the film.  The film opens in September of 2016 in an America falling apart at the seams because of a world oil shortage–causing $34/gal gasoline–and continued government growth and interference.  It is stated that railroads are the only way to get around that can be afforded by anyone other than the rich.  This particular part of the setup was unnecessary since the movie as presented would have been fully believable since Taggart Transcontinental was really only portrayed as a freight train company.  Nevertheless, the setup complete, the movie opens.

I have to say that Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Henry Rearden were truly spot-on actors for casting in these roles.  Both delivered believable and genuine performances.  In fact, every character who appeared on screen was well cast and well acted.  I have seen a number of pre-release criticisms that all of the cast are “only television actors” but I see no justification for criticism.  I was not the slightest bit disappointed by the actor choices–and rather, I thoroughly enjoyed the acting skill demonstrated.

On the side of “how did the actors compare to what I had envisioned when I read the book”, I was only surprised by Matthew Marsden as James Taggart and by Jsu Garcia as Francisco d’Anconia–both because they were a little younger than I had envisioned.  But, my assumptions aside, both men acted well and filled the roles well.

The most memorable visual of the film for me was the running of the John Galt Line’s first train at 250 mph through Colorado–and across a stunningly beautiful Readen Metal suspension bridge.  The cinematography in that portion of the film was superbly done–and caused me to envision what railroads and industry in the United States would actually be like–if not for constant government interference and looters (but I digress…)

The only really jarring part of the film–which I am unsure whether it could have been avoided–is that in several parts, the scenes change so quickly, the viewer has the impression of riding on the very train that was being portrayed, without enough time to see some things clearly as they shoot by the window.  But, as I said, I am unsure if this could have been avoided since there was sooooo much material to cover in such a short span of time. I entitled this review “Don’t Blink” because I am quite serious–do not blink too much during the film, or you will miss something important.

Towards the end of the film, there was a frantic search for the inventor of the motor found in the ruins of the 20th Century Motor company factory–and I say “frantic” not because of the storyline, but because the locations and scenes change and move so quickly–without sufficient explanation.  It was literally a 10 second scene to the effect of, “oh, he’s in…” and suddenly, Dagny and Hank are in the next city, etc.

Another odd treatment for me was the “80′s style computer text typing on the screen” every time someone went “MISSING:”  It was a little tabloid-TV-missing-girl-on-the-milk-carton for me–though not a major drawback, just a “huh?” kind of thing.

As much as I was worried about how faithful the movie would be to Ayn Rand’s meaning and intent with the story–I am no longer worried.  Despite the liberties taken to set the film into the not-distant future, I do not believe that Miss Rand’s meaning was watered down in any way.  I can say with confidence that I do not worry that the film will give the wrong impression of the philosophy behind it.  It is certainly a mere surface scratch on something far larger–but a pretty well placed and executed introduction.

The musical score was good–but did not stand out as much as I might have expected.  After all the descriptions of Richard Halley in the book, I miss that aspect of the book’s storyline–but perhaps more will come in the future parts of the film.  The only place that the music seemed to come towards the foreground was during the run of the John Galt Line train through the river valleys.  The combination of the visual with the music swept the audience along with the train in its triumphant run–but as someone else said, “when the train stopped, so did the scene.”

Some might ask, “Was this a ‘great’ film?” and I am unsure how to answer–so I shall break it down:

* Was the film entertaining and enjoyable?  Certainly!
* Was the casting well chosen?  Definitely!
* Did I believe the characters?  Yes!
* Was the cinematography well done?  Yes!
* Was the music good?  The music was good, but it is not a soundtrack that I will be rushing out to buy.
* Was the script faithful to the book?  Yes, I think the story is faithful, even with the 2016 timeline updates.  But perhaps this is what keeps me from declaring the film “great”… I know many elements had to be cut due to time constraints, but the movie was only 106 minutes long– why not go for 140 or so and give more detail?  And the transitions I mentioned earlier were simply jarring/rough in places.

Overall, I was happy to see the film and very much enjoyed watching it.  I will encourage others to see it– both because of the book on which it is based and also because it was simply a well-made film with an interesting story line and good acting.  I am looking forward to the full release on April 15th and even more to the production of Part II, since Part I ends at such an “unfinished” point.

Go and see this film.

by Eriks Goodwin-Pfister on Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 9:02pm

This review is fully original work and is copyright 2011 by Eriks Goodwin-Pfister.  Permission to reproduce this review as a whole and without edits is granted, on the condition that the byline and copyright notice remain intact.  Please send me a link to anywhere it is published.  Thank you for respecting my intellectual property rights. 

Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine?

Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine?

By Yaron Brook

Government intervention in medicine is wrecking American health care. Nearly half of all spending on health care in America is already government spending. Yet President Obama’s “reforms” will only expand that intervention.

Prior to the government’s entrance into medicine, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market–no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans’ rising productivity would have afforded them better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn’t for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product–for which each individual must assume responsibility–had given way to a view of health care as a “right,” an unearned “entitlement,” to be provided at others’ expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

The resulting system aimed to relieve the individual of the “burden” of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. Today, for every dollar’s worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out of pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14 percent.

Shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them led to an explosion in spending. In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a “right,” demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the “right” to health care: from regulations mandating various forms of insurance coverage to Bush’s massive prescription drug bill.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a “right” to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a “right” to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as the Founders conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services–no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

Real and lasting solutions to our health care problems require a rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights. This would provide the moral basis for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the tax and regulatory incentives fueling our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.

If you would like to help support ARC’s efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrandcenter.org/contribute.

This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for noncommercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrandcenter.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.

ARC’s media releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from individual subscription requests. You are subscribed as eriks@izrunas.com. If you prefer not to receive future releases, visit our Web site to change your email preferences.

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 555 12th Street NW, Suite 620 N, Washington, DC 20004

Enough, already! Leave me alone!

I can’t watch the news without feeling the need to be sick to my stomach.  From our pathetic attempts to keep the world peace to the utter nonsense coming out of the mouths of our elected officials, I am often left wondering, “Who is John Galt.”  While this character from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged may not exist in real life– the legacy of the novel is even more relevant today.  With sales of Atlas Shrugged reaching all-time-highs, I can only hope that enough people will come to their senses in time to stop Obama and the spend-drunk Congress.

I see Congress and the President falling all over themselves trying to spend money they don’t have– then using the “budget deficit” to justify TAX INCREASES.  By the way, ever notice that Congress is EXEMPT from all the laws they pass?  Funny how the lawmakers don’t want to live by the very laws they write– but that’s another issue for another time.

Today, it boils down to this.  LEAVE ME ALONE. I don’t want the “help” of Congress.  I want Congress to help assure that there is a competent Judiciary to adjudicate disputes and I want a decent President to be a statesman (no chance of either, but I can still dream/hope).  Why do these people think it’s their business to interfere in my life?  If I do not have health insurance, that’s my problem– no one else’s.  LEAVE ME ALONE.  Congress can only screw up the economy, not help it.  It comes down to this: the economy is market driven (the invisible hand, a la Adam Smith) and Congress can either let it work properly or it can try to interfere– which never works for long and said invisible hand comes to smack us all HARD for allowing Congress to be STUPID.

I have unending reverence for the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers of our county, and I have continued respect for the U.S. Constitution, but I have zero respect for pretty much ANY elected official in office at this time.  I realize that I may not know everyone, but I can say that the Republicans and the Democrats are both determined to “save the country by destroying it”, a la Lincoln (who I hate for his gross violations of the Constitution in the supposed name of saving said document).

One would assume SOMEONE has an idea what’s going on, but there are no viable third parties. Even the Libertarian Party is wrought with power-hungry morons who wouldn’t know principle-based action if it hit them on the head with a 5,000,000,000 ton brick.  I am left politically homeless, with an insatiable desire to find someone running for public office in whom I can place my trust and admiration.  I’ll keep hoping, but I’m realistic enough to not expect it any time soon.

I love the “ideal” of the United States, but am disgusted by the way that the dream has been wasted on petty, self-serving pragmatists with no morals and no principles.  The funny part though is that I trust opportunists like Hillary Clinton more than most because she is predictable and pragmatic– so at least I know how she plans to screw the country in advance.  The challenge is in dealing with the wild cards like Obama and the religious right.  They are “hell-bent” (to borrow an expression) on destroying America for the sake of their bull-hockey idea of Paradise.  Obama wants some never-never land of people who live like Kings without the necessity of work and the religious right wants a land of mindless zombies who cough up their cash to an charismatic televangelist.

Why won’t anyone accept the fact that I do not want their “help”?  I just want to work with those who agree VOLUNTARILY to do so, and to reap the rewards (or losses) for my own choices and actions.  Why is that so hard for elected officials to grasp?  LEAVE US ALONE.  WE’RE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF RUNNING OUR OWN LIVES.

Ayn Rand Saw This Coming

Ayn Rand Saw This Coming
October 9, 2008

Washington, D.C.– “Despite overwhelming evidence that government policies caused the current financial crisis, Congress is blaming businessmen,” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “What’s worse, the capitalists who have been shackled with unprecedented regulatory burdens are unable to defend themselves morally. Though the events are different, this pattern of abuse and submission is straight out of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

“The cycle starts with government intervening into the economy and imposing regulations and controls on business. This distorts the free market, leading to economic dislocations. When the problems caused by these distortions inevitably follow, everyone blames the free market and its greedy capitalists. The proposed solution? More government controls. Over the years, conservative critics of creeping government have repeatedly exposed this illogic but have always been helpless to explain why the cycle keeps repeating, decade after decade.

“The pattern keeps recurring because businessmen are willing to take the blame. From capitalism’s inception, its defenders have been morally disarmed by the widespread view that self-interest is morally suspect, and disinterested service to others is a moral ideal. So each new spate of controls has been grudgingly accepted as a fair price to pay for society’s toleration of the selfish pursuit of profit.

“Atlas Shrugged depicted a society in economic collapse due to this recurring cycle, and today’s parallels are obvious. Government manipulation of money, credit, and lending standards over several decades caused the mess we’re in. Now, the offered solution is more of the poison that sickened the economy–more bailouts, more cheap money, more government-guaranteed loans, and above all, more regulations.

“This chronic cycle will not end until businessmen accept that their production of profit is neither immoral nor amoral–it is the capstone of moral virtue. Once they shrug off the role of scapegoat, businessmen can demand with moral certitude that government punish fraud and enforce contracts but refrain from interfering with voluntary trades among consenting adults.

“When America’s markets are finally free of all coercion–in other words, when laissez-faire is achieved–financial crises such as the one we’re experiencing will never happen again.”

### ### ###

Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel (The O’Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN (Talkback Live and the Glenn Beck Program), CNBC (Closing Bell and On the Money), and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.

To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org

For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.

Ayn Rand was right– yet again.

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.”

—Ayn Rand, 1975

More than thirty years have passed and here we are seeing Ayn Rand proven right yet again.  The government has meddled and meddled and meddled and now we have the result… Instead of letting people fail–as they deserve for making bad decisions– for some reason, the Congress is seeking to allow people to escape the consequences of their actions (or inactions).

The talking chatterboxes on TV blame the free market, Obama blames deregulation, and McCain blames “Wall Street greed”– but none of them lay the blame squarely at the foot of failed welfare statist policies of Congress and the Presidents.

Enough is enough!  Stop meddling and face facts: Bad decisions have bad consequences. Period.

I’d rather suffer “worse” in the short term and recover more quickly than face a decade of Congressional bullhockey.

“The Federal Reserve is not the solution to the crisis, it is its root cause. By keeping interest rates artificially low and inflating the currency, it created the illusion that homes and subprime mortgages were can’t-miss investments.”

“Now, as we bear witness to the wreckage of the Fed’s previous central planning, the solution offered is even more Fed central planning. This is absurd. The way to prevent future credit crises is to get rid of the government’s arbitrary power to determine the money supply and the price of credit, and return to a gold standard.”

–Yaron Brook
Executive Director
Ayn Rand Institute

Hello?  Wake up and smell the coffee– or rather the evaporating value of our fiat currency!  Dr. Brook is right on with his comments.  The Fed needs to go.  With a commodity based currency (also known as the gold or silver standard), the government is fiscally incapable of running debts and financing the welfare state.

I’ve commented before on the need of individuals to live WITHIN their means, so now let me say clearly that I support this at a governmental level, most especially!

Key Points on “Rescue” Plan From A Healthy Bank’s Perspective

This one came across the desk this morning. It’s a portion of letter going out today from John Allison, President & CEO of BB&T, to every member of the US Congress.

Key Points on “Rescue” Plan From A Healthy Bank’s Perspective

1. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the primary cause of the mortgage crisis. These government supported enterprises distorted normal market risk mechanisms. While individual private financial institutions have made serious mistakes, the problems in the financial system have been caused by government policies including, affordable housing (now sub-prime), combined with the market disruptions caused by the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low and then raising interest rates too high.
2. There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial institutions. The problems are in high-risk financial institutions and on Wall Street.
3. While all financial intermediaries are being impacted by liquidity issues, this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions. It is extremely important that the bailout not damage well run companies.
4. Corrections are not all bad. The market correction process eliminates irrational competitors. There were a number of poorly managed institutions and poorly made financial decisions during the real estate boom. It is important that any rules post “rescue” punish the poorly run institutions and not punish the well run companies.
5. A significant and immediate tax credit for purchasing homes would be a far less expensive and more effective cure for the mortgage market and financial system than the proposed “rescue” plan.
6. This is a housing value crisis. It does not make economic sense to purchase credit card loans, automobile loans, etc. The government should directly purchase housing assets, not real estate bonds. This would include lots and houses under construction.
7. The guaranty of money funds by the U.S. Treasury creates enormous risk for the banking industry. Banks have been paying into the FDIC insurance fund since 1933. The fund has a limit of $100,000 per client. An arbitrary, “out of the blue” guarantee of money funds creates risk for the taxpayers and significantly distorts financial markets.
8. Protecting the banking system, which is fundamentally controlled by the Federal Reserve, is an established government function. It is completely unclear why the government needs to or should bailout insurance companies, investment banks, hedge funds and foreign companies.
9. It is extremely unclear how the government will price the problem real estate assets. Priced too low, the real estate markets will be worse off than if the bail out did not exist. Priced too high, the taxpayers will take huge losses. Without a market price, how can you rationally determine value?
10. The proposed bankruptcy “cram down” will severely negatively impact mortgage markets and will damage well run institutions. This will provide an incentive for homeowners who are able to pay their mortgages, but have a loss in their house, to take bankruptcy and force losses on banks. (Banks would not have received the gains had the houses appreciated.) This will substantially increase the risk in mortgage lending and make mortgage pricing much higher in the future.
11. Fair Value accounting should be changed immediately. It does not work when there are no market prices. If we had Fair Value accounting, as interpreted today, in the early 1990’s the United States financial system would have crashed. Accounting should not drive economic activity, it should reflect it.
12. The proposed new merger accounting rules should be deferred for at least five years. The new merger accounting rules are creating uncertainty for high quality companies who might potentially purchase weaker companies.
13. The primary beneficiaries of the proposed rescue are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The Treasury has a number of smart individuals, including Hank Paulson. However, Treasury is totally dominated by Wall Street investment bankers. They do not have knowledge of the commercial banking industry. Therefore, they can not be relied on to objectively assess all the implications of government policy on all financial intermediaries. The decision to protect the money funds is a clear example of a material lack of insight into the risk to the total financial system.
14. Arbitrary limits on executive compensation will be self defeating. With these limits, only the failing financial institutions will participate in the “rescue,” effectively making this plan a massive subsidy for incompetence. Also, how will companies attract the leadership talent to manage their business effectively with irrational compensation limits?

Objectivism in my life…

Ayn Rand

I was sitting in a senior English class at Monacan High School when my teacher assigned me The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand as my reading and reporting project. He had assigned it to me because I was an ardent student of architecture. I got through about the first three hundred pages, then put the book down–for what ended up being a couple of years.

When I picked up the copy of The Fountainhead–now long overdue from the library–I read it all the way through this time and by the end was incredibly intrigued by the ideals presented by Ayn Rand in the novel. I was fascinated to read a book where individualism and sticking to one’s principles was lauded as a GOOD thing.

Although I found out that Atlas Shrugged was the “next” book, I decided I wanted to know more about what Ayn Rand had to say to the world, so I chose to read “The Virtue of Selfishness” next.  Wow! That was my first “dry” book to read.  I had to force myself not to skim and skip.  I wanted to be sure what I was reading!

After finishing Virtue of Selfishness and utterly devouring Atlas Shrugged, I was completely hooked.  The thing that most fascinated me was Ayn Rand’s reputation for challenging people who told her that they loved her work and agreed with her.  She would demand that they explain WHY they agreed and if their explanation was insufficient, she would challenge them to study and learn more.  Ayn Rand was the first person I had encountered who insisted that one agreed with her only when and if they were convinced–through reason and logic–of the validity of her assertion to their own satisfaction.  Finally! Someone who did not expect me to accept “because I said so” as a reason to agree!

Over the ensuing years, I have continued my study of Ayn Rand’s work and have attended a few conferences and even agreed to take over two Objectivist organizations, The Rattigan Society and The Association of Objectivist Businessmen.  I still remain involved in these organizations through to today.

The important part here is not how much I study, nor even how much I “support”…  The most important part about Objectivism in my life is my ability to APPLY it to my life and be better for it.  I’ll not claim to be an expert just yet, but I continue to work towards it.