Atlas Shrugged book club questions

1. 1.

   Rand argues that productive achievement is the foundation of civilization. Do you find this claim convincing? What does it leave out?

2. 2.

   The novel's heroes refuse to compromise with people they regard as parasites or second-handers. Is there a version of this principle that applies to your own life without the coldness Rand attaches to it?

3. 3.

   Rand's critique of altruism as self-destruction is unusual — most ethical systems treat self-sacrifice as virtuous. How do you situate her argument against other frameworks you find compelling?

4. 4.

   The villains of Atlas Shrugged are mainly motivated by resentment and the desire to destroy what they can't create. How accurately does this characterize the political and economic forces Rand is critiquing?

5. 5.

   The 'strike of the mind' is a thought experiment, not a realistic scenario. What does its hypothetical character tell us about the limits and the utility of the novel as philosophy?

6. 6.

   Rand draws a sharp line between producers and parasites. Is this distinction as clean in reality as she depicts it, or does it break down when you look at actual economic life?

7. 7.

   The novel has had enormous influence on Silicon Valley and libertarian political thought. Why do you think it resonates so strongly in those communities specifically?

8. 8.

   Rand's romantic heroes love each other for their values and achievements, not their vulnerabilities or needs. Does this conception of love strike you as admirable, unrealistic, or both?

9. 9.

   Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. How well does its picture of the relationship between government and business hold up sixty-plus years later?

10. 10.

    What is the strongest argument you can make against Rand's position? What would she say in reply?

11. 11.

    The novel is more than 1,000 pages. Did its length serve the argument, or did you find the repetition a weakness? What would be lost in a shorter version?

12. 12.

    Rand rejected the academic philosophical establishment and they largely rejected her. How do you evaluate a philosophical system that sits outside the mainstream of the discipline it claims to address?

How to run the discussion

• Pick six to eight, not all of them. An hour of real discussion covers fewer questions than anyone expects, and racing the list is what makes a book club feel like homework.
• Open with what people noticed, not what they concluded. Asking for a verdict first hardens opinions before anyone has heard each other.
• Let the disagreement run. The questions below that split a room are the ones worth the time; the ones everyone answers the same way can be skipped.
• Ask the quiet person a specific question. A direct, narrow question is far easier to answer than an open invitation to contribute.