Rand And...

In an earlier post, I noted Michael Moore may attack capitalism, but since he doesn't know what it is, it's sort of pointless. Now, as noted in The Volokh Conspiracy, Adam Kirsch, in his New York Times review of a book on Ayn Rand, doesn't seem to get it either. From the review:

[Rand's publisher Bennnett Cerf told her] if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print [John Galt's big speech]. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life. [....] Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist [...] would have done.

Huh? This is a pretty basic misunderstanding. The basis of the free market is that A and B are allowed to make what they believe to be mutually beneficial contracts with as little interference from the government as possible. What A and B value are up the them. As the Conspiracy notes, the whole plot of Rand's Fountainhead turns on an architect who will undergo any privation as long as he gets to create buildings as he sees fit--how could Kirsch not be aware of that?

PS I'm one of the many readers of Atlas Shrugged who skipped the John Galt chapter. The book is long enough, and clear enough in intent, to make such lengthy speechifying (even by the standards of Atlas Shrugged) unnecessary.

PPS I recently heard on NPR a discussion of this new book. The interviewer seemed to believe former Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan's recent statements show there's something seriously wrong with Rand's economics. There probably is something seriously wrong with them, but that's not determined by what Greenspan said.

Just before the Rand interview, the same guy spoke to Jonathan Alter, whose latest book compares Obama to FDR. One point Alter made was that both of them saved capitalism but were nevertheless attacked by rich ingrates. You might have expected something from the interviewer noting this is sort of a controversial statement, but as far as I could tell, he considered it self-evident.

PPPS Yet anothe profile of Rand in Slate by Johann Hari. It's a good example of how perverse her opponents are. Instead of attempting to understand her influence, good and bad, it simply assumes the worst of her philosophy and her followers, which are apparently the cause of all evil besetting America.