Not funny. It's a vicious caricature. Not that the children's movies wouldn't have deserved some scathing criticisms for the values they tried to promulgate. One special quibble: Snow White worked for room and board, no salary needed.

but they might look her up and become interested! -- j

great story;;; Thanks, root1657! -- j

this is bizarre. . Mallory Ortberg appears to be a
strange writer who knows nothing about Rand. . I have
seen only 2 of these movies, and her analyses are
dead off. . I bought Babe on tape because I thought
that it was delightful. . it really IS noteworthy
that Rand died in 82 and she represents a
significant alternative point of view. . Good !!! -- j

I saw this on FB. I commented there that it's unfortunate that the author doesn't seem to understand AR's philosophy at all.

Which is why there are more chicken farmers than there are people living off their savings interest.

It is better interest than I get from my bank!

Jan

I actually laughed out loud at the hyperbole, both with Rand's appreciation of cats and the application of her philosophy to movies. I don't know the author's intention, but I enjoyed reading it.

earned value over time based on feeding and caring for the chickens while they... create interest with each other.

Good for you. The only problem with calculations based on chickens is if you have both hens and a rooster, you can get a reasonable 'interest' on you chicken account.

Jan

I think it is entirely possible that Mallory is an Objectivist with a sense of humor. Ayn Rand loved cats and Mallory is clearly well acquainted with that fact.
Please note the author's first name. Possible reference to Steven Mallory in THE FOUNTAINHEAD?

Simply nonsense.
There is nothing to be gained, including amusement from this twisted "What If" piece.

I actually converted a leftie by coming at him under the radar with this. He was smack talking money, so I asked him if money wasn't just a placeholder for value, since it's easier to carry paper money than a chicken (he thought bartering food was a good idea). Once he accepted that premise, then I talked bout skipping the chicken, and using that money as a placeholder for anything of value, such as a piece of my time performing a task for which you might have been willing to give me the chicken We were computer guys, so it became the joke of how many chickens each task might be worth, to which I would always just convert the time it took, compare our salary to the market value of a chicken, and had an answer for him. THEN, because he was trying to learn Italian (and did a good job of self study) I slid him a copy of 'We the Living".... Bam, 3 weeks from leftie commie to self loathing objectivist... a few more weeks to drop the loathing and truly embrace his new understanding.

Did anyone notice the writer (obviously NOT AR) has this bizarre cat fetish going on? .Once was cute, but it's exploited worse than Charlie Bucket. And I disagree - had Charlie actually worked hard and *earned* that factory, rather than winning it in a game of chance with a chocolate bar, it would have been far better. Lesson there - it is far more lucrative to try to win something for nothing in a game of chance than working hard and earning your way to the top.

Just one question: what's the fixation on cats? With dogs, you get some personal attention and fun for your investment. Cats are the ultimate moochers among domesticated animals...

Do not Lady and the Tramp feed spaghetti noodles to dogs. It isn't good for them.
Should two dogs regardless of gender slurp up the same noodle, they are more likely to fight than to kiss.
Should Lady be in heat, Tramp won't care about kissing anyway.

I saw this making the rounds in Facebook on Saturday. I ended up having a conversation there with somebody I never met, but who seemed knowledgeable.

Ayn Rand is so misunderstood by many of those who don't like her. It’s typical, though. People often have strong opinions on things they know very little about.

With some of these the author does a decent job summarizing the *opposite* of what Rand would have thought.

@TimCutler LOL I think that's the correct answer

While I found the article superficially amusing, it struck me as anti-Objectivist propaganda. It makes Rand, and by extension her philosophy, about nothing more than making money. Money in and of itself is meaningless. It's only as a representation and exchange of value that it become meaningful.

What's more frightening is the question of how many readers of the New Yorker know that Rand passed away a long time ago? Or care?

She's been dead how long? And she STILL bothers them. Double giggle.

The writer falsely attributes her own views to one whose opinions have value. no stars.