redeeming

I thought so. Yeah well, since I didn't discuss it any further, I switched the subject before it got me nausea. Good question. I wouldn't know really. He doesn't seem to me like someone who abuses people. Maybe experience in his work made him realize at an older age, and now he is passing this onto his son, I don't know. Thanks. It really sounds like an interesting read. And yes, it's absolutely bound to be a better read then becoming a rat, written by an author nobody has ever heard of. That said, thanks for the responses everyone. I really think that uplifting these practices to an art is repulsive, even if its meant as some kind of joke. I think that if a manager comes on his position using these methods, his company will not survive for too long (things like morale and productivity will go down fast, and a manager only good at dirty tricks instead of actually managing the place won't help either).

I'am reading AS now, I'm halfway through the third part, but I have the feeling that I missed some things. By that I mean things that are part of Rands philosophy. This became all the more clear to me when my friend told me about this book of his. This friend is still in college, but he knows he wants to make carreer. So he has this book which his father recommended him. It is called "How to become a rat", and it teaches the "art of backstabbing, gossiping and conspiring". People that want to do things the clean way will find that they are deceiving themselves. No, not only reasonal arguments, but also the underground, political game is just as important. At least, thats what the back of the book says. So this book teaches you how to make carreer by means of spreading gossip, backstabbing and even make others lose their job. Now, I know that this sounds like the way of the looters, and is everything which AS portrays as bad. I wanted to make a discussion of it, but if mentioned friend would ask me why it's immoral to do what that book says, I wouldn't know what to say. So that why I ask here, whats Rands take on this, or objectivisms take for all that matters?