“Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again.” –police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998)

Capitalism unleashed an extraordinary burst of scientific and technological innovation and of human creativity–yet this had largely gone unrecognized as a phenomenon with any moral or intellectual significance. Ayn Rand was the first to celebrate the accomplishments of the James Watts and Andrew Carnegies and Thomas Edisons

Well, actually, no. Rand was not the first to lionize the inventors and entrepreneurs. Thomas Edison was a widely admired celebrity in his own time. James Watt was invited to join all the prestigious scientific societies of his time, and there were numerous statues erected in his memory long before Ayn Rand came along — including a huge one at Westminster Abbey.

The notion that those who have created wealth are vilified by society is a falsehood. The reverse is true.

Here’s another example:

Most intellectuals have accepted the old altruist caricature of self-interest as brute criminality, as if the only choice we face is between forms of sacrifice: sacrificing ourselves for the sake of others or sacrificing others to ourselves.

“Most intellectuals”? Yes, there are some, to be sure. But to suggest that this school of thought is preponderant among the intelligentsia is grossly wrong. It certainly does not include any economists and few political scientists.

The philosophy of altruism gives us a choice between two moral models: Mother Theresa or Al Capone.

If anybody can name a respected intellectual who has presented moral choices in such stark terms, I’d love to hear it. Again, I’m sure that you can find a few — but to suggest that these people control the universe is just plain wrong.

For the first time, Ayn Rand recognized the reality and significance of these men and drew a profound moral lesson: that genuine self-interest means, not the short-range conniving of the brute, but the creative thought and productive effort of the entrepreneur.

Again, this is historically incorrect. How about Adam Smith? How about ANY of the economists who preceded Ayn Rand? How about the classic Horatio Alger books, of which there were many variations both before and after Mr. Alger himself? Ms. Rand was nowhere near being a pioneer in this. Indeed, during the 1920s much of the public fare regarding such men bordered on hagiography.

But my first encounter with the book was only about six years ago. I had promised a friend to read it. It didn’t impress me at all; I found it very preachy and quite pedestrian in its analysis of social issues. I remember being shocked at how dumb this book was; I had always assumed, based on reputation, that Ayn Rand was a deep thinker, but the book I read was about as mature in its thinking as some of the rants I read on the web. I finally gave up on it about a quarter of the way through; it was just too childish. I did, however, thumb to the back of the book to see if I was missing anything. The last page left me laughing out loud. How could anybody take this tripe seriously? I thought.

Obviously, there are lots of people who take this book seriously. And it is rather rude of me to treat their favorite book so dismissively. I wonder what I’d think of similar remarks made about Walden. And I won’t argue that Rand does make some decent points in the book. But the points she makes well are fairly obvious and the mistakes she makes are pretty much howlers.