Rand presents good story in the sense that it’s thought provoking, forcing me to think about my motivation for doing things, make me consider what I’m doing with my life and even think about the meaning of “doing things” for myself or others around me. Some of the central points in the book are that it’s ethical just to produce more than one consumes and to do ones best regardless of ability and situation. Getting a reminder of this is always good, but where the story does well is by telling why this is ethical and good, then put it in context and made abundantly clear.

The sad thing is that Ayn Rand makes these points by creating a world and system based on preposterous claims like “there is no truth, no rationality and we can never be sure about anything” as a central philosophy. Rand picks a bunch of philosophic tenets (like Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”) out of context and presents them as foundations worth building a society on. The result is of course an evil and corrupt one, which Rand then proceeds to destroy. It’s almost like Rand ignores the conversational aspects society and science, that society is a collective effort where the climb upward goes both over the shoulders of midgets and giants. The world view she proposes also hinges almost exclusively on some genius-savior being the requirement for success in all activity, and that there is no way the mindless masses can do without the leadership of these titans. Maybe I’m an optimist to believe that people are smarter and more resourceful than Rand’s picture of the “common” man.

Still, it’s a good book and definitely worth my time. Even if she ignores it in the story, the book itself is an argument in a conversation – a somewhat questionable argument – but one that needs being reminded of: that Rationality is king, and everything hinges on it, no matter the state of the society you live in.

1. I don’t have any parties that are “mine.” I find worthwhile arguments both on the left, center and right side of the political spectrum, and I try to be open to new arguments.
2. There are waaaay too many things going on in our society (and in the world in general) to make informed decisions on everything. This means I’ll have to look for the basics – values, world view, ambitions, priorities between group/society and the individual, previous history and other “gut feeling” factors.
3. Still, there are a couple topics I think I’m comfortable with – topics where I have a slight opportunity of making an informed decision. For me, these include ICT policy, IP issues and questions rising from the tensions between traditional media+business and new technology.
4. I’ve chosen to weigh the issues where I’m informed higher than the topics I don’t know much about. This is mostly because I see which parties have bad and/or lacking policies, but also because I think it’s the right thing to do.
5. Voting for me is about which direction I’d like to see my society move. But in order to have an idea on this, I’ll have to understand as much as I can about how society works. This is a work in progress, and in the meantime I’ll vote mainly on issues where I can say something coherent and useful.
6. I’ve decided not to vote tactically (“likelyhood of winning” is NOT a criteria I’m considering.) The notion of tactical voting even disgusts me a little. :-6

Happy voting!