This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ayn Rand Was NOT a Libertarian

George Washington's picture




 

 

Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought.

But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.  For example, Rand said:

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

 

***

 

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis [than a candidate from the Libertarian Party].

 

***

 

[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

 

***

 

[Libertarians] are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

 

***

 

Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

 

***

 

[Question] Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

 

[Rand] Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

 

***

 

The Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

Rand also disagreed with libertarians on foreign policy.  For example, most libertarians - including Ron Paul - oppose military intervention against Iran, while the Ayn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran.

Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads."  Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent", while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are." (Many libertarians were highly critical of Israeli government at the time.)

Sandeep Jaitly of Fekete Research says that real libertarians do not follow Rand's philosophy.

Murray Rothbard - founder of modern libertarianism, chief academic officer of leading libertarian think tank the Mises Institute, and one of the most important thinkers in the Austrian School of Economics - argued in 1972 that Rand was a champion for her own aggrandizement, not for liberty or reason.

Rothbard accused Rand -in a long but must-read essay - of being acting like a typical cult leader:

The Ayn Rand cult ... flourished for just ten years in the 1960s.... It also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every person’s individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.

 

***

 

Since every cult is grounded on a faith in the infallibility of the guru, it becomes necessary to keep its disciples in ignorance of contradictory infidel writings which may wean cult members away from the fold.

 

***

 

Just as Communists are often instructed not to read anti-Communist literature, the Rand cult went further to disseminate what was virtually an Index of Permitted Books.

 

***

 

The philosophical rationale for keeping Rand cultists in blissful ignorance was the Randian theory of "not giving your sanction to the Enemy."

 

***

 

In a development eerily reminiscent of the organized hatred directed against the arch-heretic Emanuel Goldstein in Orwell’s 1984, Rand cultists were required to sign a loyalty oath to Rand; essential to the loyalty oath was a declaration that the signer would henceforth never read any future works of the apostate and arch-heretic Branden [Rand's number 2]. After the split, any Rand cultist seen carrying a book or writing by Branden was promptly excommunicated.

 

***

 

Cultists were required to swear their unquestioning belief that Rand was right and Branden wrong, even though they were not permitted to learn the facts behind the split. In fact, the mere failure to take a stand, the mere attempt to find the facts, or the statement that one could not take a stand on such a grave matter without knowledge of the facts was sufficient for instant expulsion. For such an attitude was conclusive proof of the defective "loyalty" of the disciple to his guru, Ayn Rand.

 

***

 

Just as the Marxist movements developed jargon and slogans which were clung to for fear of uttering incorrect deviations, the same was true in the Randian movement. In the name of "precision of language," in short, nuance and even synonyms were in effect prohibited.

 

***

 

Wit and humor, as might be gathered from this incident, were verboten in the Randian movement. The philosophical rationale was that humor demonstrates that one "is not serious about one’s values." The actual reason, of course, is that no cult can withstand the piercing and sobering effect, the sane perspective, provided by humor. One was permitted to sneer at one’s enemies, but that was the only humor allowed, if humor that be.

 

Personal enjoyment, indeed, was also frowned upon in the movement and denounced as hedonistic "whim-worship." In particular, nothing could be enjoyed for its own sake – every activity had to serve some indirect, "rational" function. Thus, food was not to be savored, but only eaten joylessly as a necessary means of one’s survival; sex was not to be enjoyed for its own sake, but only to be engaged in grimly as a reflection and reaffirmation of one’s "highest values"; painting or movies only to be enjoyed if one could find "rational values" in doing so. All of these values were not simply to be discovered quietly by each person – the heresy of "subjectivism" – but had to be proven to the rest of the cult. In practice, as will be seen further below, the only safe aesthetic or romantic "values" or objects for the member were those explicitly sanctioned by Ayn Rand or other top disciples.

 

***

 

Any such confession meant a harrowing process of ideological and psychological purification, supposedly ending in one’s success at achieving rationality, independence, and self-esteem and therefore an unquestioning and blind devotion to Ayn Rand.

 

***

 

One top young Randian ... was deathly afraid to ask the question, it being so basic that he knew he would be excommunicated on the spot for simply raising the point; but he had complete faith that if Rand should be asked the question, she would answer it satisfactorily and resolve his doubts. And so he waited, year after year, hoping against hope that someone would ask the question, be expelled, but that his own doubts would then be resolved in the process.

 

In the manner of many cults, loyalty to the guru had to supersede loyalty to family and friends – typically the first personal crises for the fledgling Randian. If non-Randian family and friends persisted in their heresies even after being hectored at some length by the young neophyte, they were then considered to be irrational and part of the Enemy and had to be abandoned. The same was true of spouses; many marriages were broken up by the cult leadership who sternly informed either the wife or the husband that their spouses were not sufficiently Randworthy. Indeed, since emotions resulted only from premises, and since the leaders’ premises were by definition supremely rational, that top leadership presumed to try to match and unmatch couples.

 

***

 

One girl, a certified top Randian, who experienced the misfortune of falling in love with an unworthy non-Randian. The leadership told the girl that if she persisted in her desire to marry the man, she would be instantly excommunicated. She did so nevertheless, and was promptly expelled.

 

***

 

But the most important sanction for the enforcement of loyalty and obedience, the most important instrument for psychological control of the members, was the development and practice of Objectivist Psychotherapy. In effect, this psychological theory held that since emotion always stems from incorrect ideas, that therefore all neurosis did so as well; and hence, the cure for that neurosis is to discover and purge oneself of those incorrect ideas and values. And since Randian ideas were all correct and all deviation therefore incorrect, Objectivist Psychotherapy consisted of (a) inculcating everyone with Randian theory – except now in a supposedly psycho-therapeutic setting; and (b) searching for the hidden deviation from Randian theory responsible for the neurosis and purging it by correcting the deviation.

 

***

 

It is no wonder that the enormous psychological pressure of cult membership led to an extremely high turnover in the Randian movement, relatively far more so than among the Communists.

 

***

 

Such fear was greater than that of a Communist member, because the Randian had far less leeway for ideological or personal deviation. Furthermore, since Rand had an absolute and total line on every conceivable question of ideology and daily life, all aspects of such life had to be searched – by oneself and by others – for suspicious heresies and deviations. Everything was the object of fear and suspicion. There was the fear of making an independent judgment, for suppose that the member was to make a statement on some subject on which he did not know Rand’s position, and then were to find out that Rand disagreed.

 

***

 

Every Randian lived in – and indeed was himself – a community of spies and informers, ready to ferret out and denounce any deviations from Randian doctrine. Thus, one time a Randian, walking with a girl friend, told her that he had attended a party at which several Randians had made an impromptu tape imitating the voices of the top Randian leaders. Stricken by this dire information and after spending a sleepless night, the girl rushed to inform the top leadership of this terrible transgression. Promptly, the leading participants were called on the carpet by their Objectivist Psychotherapist and bitterly denounced in their "therapy" sessions: "After all," said the therapist, "you wouldn’t mock God." When the owner of the tape refused the therapist’s demand to relinquish it so that it could be inspected in detail, his doom as a member of the movement was effectively sealed.

 

No Randian, even the top leadership, was exempt from the all-pervasive fear and repression. Every one of the original cadre, for example, was placed on probation at least once, and was forced to demonstrate his loyalty to Rand at length and in numerous ways.

 

***

 

Cult theory decreed that happiness can only be achieved by being a committed Randian; they couldn’t even be intelligent, since how could seemingly intelligent people not be Randians, especially if they commit the gravest sin – failing to become Randians once they were exposed to this new gospel.

 

***

 

The errant member was peremptorily ordered to appear at a "trial" to hear charges against him. If he refused to appear – as he would if he had any shred of self-respect left – then the trial would continue in absentia, with all the members present taking turns in denouncing the expelled member, reading charges against him (again in a manner eerily reminiscent of 1984).... Having his closest friend take the leading part in the heresy proceeding was of course important as a way of forcing the friend to demonstrate his own loyalty to Rand, thereby clearing himself of any lingering taint by association. It is reported that when Branden was expelled, one of his closest former friends in New York sent him a letter proclaiming that the only moral thing he could do at that point was to commit suicide – a strange position for an allegedly pro-life, pro-individual-purpose philosophy to take.

 

***

 

Robotically, the Randians intoned their slogans, generally imitating the poses and manner of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, and further, imitating their common cult vision of heroes and heroines of the Randian fictional canon .... Many of the young men managed to look like carbon copies of Branden, while the young women tried to look like Barbara Branden, replete with the cigarette-holder held aloft, derived from Ayn Rand herself, that was supposed to symbolize the high moral standards and the mocking contempt wielded by Randian heroines.

 

***

 

Preferring Bach, for example, to Rachmaninoff, subjected one to charges of believing in a "malevolent universe." lf not corrected by self-criticism and psychotherapeutic brainwashing, such deviation could well lead to ejection from the movement.

 

***

 

If the Rand line was totalitarian, encompassing all of one’s life, then, even when all the general premises were agreed upon and Randians checked with headquarters to see who was In or Out, there was still need to have some "judicial" mechanism to resolve concrete issues and to make sure that every member toed the line on that question. No one was ever allowed to be neutral on any issue. The judicial mechanism to resolve such concrete disputes was, as usual in cults, the rank one enjoyed in the Randian hierarchy.

 

***

 

There was an unofficial designation that was far more revealing: "the senior collective" .... each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden. There was, for example, Nathan’s sister Elaine Kalberman; his brother-in-law, Harry Kalberman; his first cousin, Dr. Allan Blumenthal, who assumed the mantle of leading Objectivist Psychotherapist after Branden’s expulsion; Barbara’s first cousin, Leonard Piekoff; and Joan Mitchell, wife of Allan Blumenthal. Alan Greenspan’s familial relation was more tenuous, being the former husband of Joan Mitchell. The only non-relative in the class of '43 was Mary Ann Rukovina, who made the top rank after being the college roommate of Joan Mitchell.

 

***

 

The Rand cult was concerned not with every man’s individuality, but only with Rand’s individuality, not with everyone’s right reason but only with Rand’s reason. The only individuality that flowered to the extent of blotting out all others, was Ayn Rand’s herself; everyone else was to become a cipher subject to Rand’s mind and will.

 

***

 

The guiding spirit of the Randian movement was not individual liberty – as it seemed to many young members – but rather personal power for Ayn Rand and her leading disciples. For power within the movement could be secured by totalitarian isolation and control of the minds and lives of every member; but such tactics could scarcely work outside the movement, where power could only hopefully be achieved by cozying up the President and his inner circles of dominion.

 

Thus, power not liberty or reason, was the central thrust of the Randian movement. The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.

Postscript:  Ayn Rand's main real life hero was apparently a serial killer.  See this this  and this.  That doesn't mean that she didn't write great books; but it does call her judgment into question.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:34 | 3021006 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Although it is beneath my dignity level to remark upon such decrepits as Ayn Rand, I will remark on the subject of forensic finance.

Forensic Finance Bible

Most American citizens still don't understand the primary cause for the global economic meltdown?  Can you believe it?????

The synopsis below is a summary of the connected events, a continuum or continuity of actions, which led to the present situation today --- which profited a select few, while working towards the impoverishment of the majority.

After World War II, the immediate lackeys of the super-rich established a political slush fund called the Black Eagle Trust.  This was based upon recovered Nazi (and to some extent, Empire of Japan) stolen treasures, which most predominantly were taken from Eastern Europe.

The three original controllers of this fund were John McCloy, Robert Lovett and Robert Anderson.  The monies from this fund set the stage for future covert perfidy. (Lovett and McCloy were two members of the group who created the American intelligence establishment.)

Fast forward to the S&L meltdown, which was simply another larger step in national thievery.  (But at least that time, there were about 900 convictions out of 1,000 banksters prosecuted for their financial fraud --- and that was the point certain parties created credit derivatives, the modern securitized financial instruments --- securitization originally began in the early 1900s, and really exploded during the 1920s, leading up to the Great Crash and Great Depression, but securitization was officially ended back then in 1933.)

Forward to 9/11/01, where we heard on the day prior (9/10), the Pentagon's comptroller announce that an auditing team had uncovered $2.3 trillion which was unaccounted for --- we would hear little further about this as on the very next day an airliner would fly into the west wall of the Pentagon, killing most of that auditing team involved (DIA's Financial Management staff), and severely injuring the remaining members.

Concurrent with the aftermath of events of 9/11, the SEC would invoke its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k), which allowed for the easing of regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next fifteen days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.

Over the next several months, offshore hedge funds would double in value, from an original $2 trillion to over $4 trillion.  Reflect on that for a moment:  $2.3 trillion unaccounted for, with another $240 billion cleared --- which may have been part of that unaccounted for trillions.

Further missing monies from the two wars during the Bush administration:  $8.7 billion in Iraq, and over $17 billion in Afghanistan.

An enormous transformation, originally incremental and slow, but now with more funds at their disposal, truly took off, with the dismantling of the production/consumption economy, and the implementation of the fantasy finance economy.

Which gave us that global meltdown:  John Paulson and his hedge fund, along with Goldman Sachs, designed and created a financial fraud instrument, the Abacus CDO, layered with sure-to-fail crappy loans, which they took out a bunch of credit default swaps (naked swaps, or unregulated insurance instruments) against.

So each naked swap they purchased at $1.4 million apiece, paid out an incredible $100 million --- and that was a bunch of swaps as Paulson made an estimated $3.4 billion on that deal.

Now imagine all the others involved in similar transactions.  So multiply Paulson's deal by 100, or 1,000 and you begin to understand the cause for the meltdown.  Another financial firm, Magnetar Capitals, created a bunch of losing deals --- in fact, 96% of their deals went into the toilet as losses, but they made out like the ultra-bandits they were as they did exactly what Paulson had done.  Now multiply that by 100, or 1,000.

And much or most of those deals were made through AIG, the world's largest "insurance" corporation --- AIG did $460 billion worth of those deals, with no capital to back it up.

That means that AIG sold CDSes at $1.4 million a pop, with $460 billion worth (there were variations in the price, but I'm keeping this as simple as possible), so the possible payouts would range from $20 trillion to a potential $40 trillion or more --- funds which AIG didn't have to pay Paulson (and Alan Greenspan who worked at his hedge fund) and Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, BofA and Citigroup, etc.

Hence that bailout --- better known, as paying off the ultra-thieves who ruined everything for the rest of us --- for many, many years to come.

Now, Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns have been blamed, and they share plenty of blame, but they were the firms that were simply outwitted by JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank doing bear runs on them, after their perfidy left them in highly vulnerable positions, the other three banksters pulled the rug of their counterparties, thus destroying their financial positions.  Further consolidating, further monopolizing the financial industry.

(Paid stooges like Barry Lynn at New America Foundation, which is funded by Pew oil money and David Rockefeller's lackey, private bankster Peter G. Peterson, would have us believes these monopolies just accidentally happen --- never trust those disinformation specialists, they practice "soft" propaganda, and please beware of Bill Moyers [longtime FBI snitch], Kevin Phillips, who would have us believe the CPI, or Consumer Price Index, was the cause of the economic meltdown, Noam Chomsky and Robert Reich, or both truly muddy the waters of truth.)

The rich and super-rich simply became the ultra-rich through their rigging of the markets and their insider trading --- it is really that very simple.

Now the six principal methods of their manipulation are the following:

(1) unlimited number of investors per hedge fund

(2) unlimited number of commodity futures contracts

(3) unlimited number of credit default swaps (or naked swaps)

(4) DTCC's Stock Borrow Program (SBP), which allows for naked short selling

(5) LIBOR rates manipulation, which can and was used to manipulate the prices of structured finance loans (private equity LBO loans based upon securitizations, and securitized financial instruments called credit derivatives), manipulation of the prices of municipal swaps, profiting the banksters but screwing states, counties and cities, mortgage lending and ARMs, etc., etc.)

(6) unlimited unregistered trusts (Normal hiding of wealth and ownership has historically taken place through the use of foundations, trusts, and offshore finance centers, or tax havens, and using those foundations and trusts as conduits, they set up unregistered trusts, especially offshore --- and do you track those unregistered trusts?  You can't!)

Any single usage or combination of the above in a myriad number of ways, offers almost limitless power to the financial-intelligence-complex which primarily runs things in America, and at the global level, the transnational capitalist class, or global banking intelligence complex.

It's really, really that simple . . . .

 

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:17 | 3020921 impermanence
impermanence's picture

You folks are missing the point.  You have to take the good stuff and leave the non-sense behind.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:01 | 3021130 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Good call.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:48 | 3020738 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

 

I just discovered "Atlas Shrugged" and I'm almost a half way through it and it is great book and insightful philosophy we cannot ignore. Ayn Rand gave all of us a weapon to fight Marxists and we should be grateful for it. I was too young when the whole Libertarian movement and Ayn Rand cult started and I'm coming from the former Eastern Block country. So, I have a different perspective anyway.

The problem I'm seeing here is that people on the Right are divided too much and the Left is united. We cannot be purists if we want to win with the Left. All of us Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Reaganists, Austrian School, Libertarians should stand together against the Left because they try to corrupt our souls and ultimately they destroy our country.

 

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 00:06 | 3022763 Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture

The key is to reject both - both the Statist and the Individualist. Neither works.  People aren't like that - we are not built to be all or nothing in mundane affairs.  The world and the life we live in it isn't that absolutely important.  A wise person takes each situation as it arises and tries to find the best means to the least-bad result.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:08 | 3021122 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

+1 for your discovery of Rand. I didn't read Atlas until I was forty-five but it has had inestimable value as compared to the nihilistic clap-trap that I was indoctrinated with in high school and college.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:48 | 3021350 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

I have had a commies indoctrination all the way through the college. However we were able to see through it right away. We didn't agree, we have made private jockes about that propaganda but had to keep quiet at the time. Reality showed us what was true and what was false. Ayn Rand was forbidden and completly unknown behind The Iron Curtain

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 15:04 | 3021432 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It sounds like your life has paralleled Rand's in some ways.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:35 | 3020702 Dagny Taggart
Dagny Taggart's picture

Many creative and smart people who are misled or have stumbled down a bad path have produced great works that touch people. Interpretation can be taken many ways.... eyes of the beholder and all that. It does not require membership in their cult following.

I saw the most important message of both Shrugged and Fountainhead as self reliance and valuing individual resiliance. It actually compliments the idea of personal Sovereigntry quite nicely. I suppose where you stand really does depend upon where you sit.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:43 | 3020719 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Yes, I totally agree and voted you up ... self reliance and valuing individual resiliance.  And I would argue that - in a sense -  the best of Rand's writing shares these attributes with existentialist writers (Camus, Sartre).

They both deal with super-human action as an individual in the face of meaningless societal assumptions and conventions, non?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 15:48 | 3021577 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

The ultimate, and only true, sovereignty is existential, ie. experiential:  awareness itself.  All else is dependent on conditions and therefore not sovereign by defintion.  A concise cross-over from there to the best moral lesson from Ayn Rand can be found in the title of a recent book by the Tibetan Dzogchen teacher, Dzigur Kongtrul:  "Its Up to You."    

A university friend of mine was the first Libertarian candidate for national office: a US House from Colorado.   I believe that was in 1972.  The candidate was 22 or 23 years old.  He was one of a handful of people who founded the party in 1971 in someones living room in Westminster Colorado. 

He was a serious student of Rand in college.  I know because I stayed up half the night more than a few times discussing Rand, her books and her periodical The Objectivist with him and a few others.    

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:07 | 3020868 monogratis
monogratis's picture

For Rand, exploiting the system is the best means to freedom.  For Libertarians, avoiding the system is the best means to freedom.

For Rand, that meant making deals with the devil, that's all.  One chooses the blue pill the other chooses the red.  Nothing wrong with that, they are both individual choices.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:53 | 3020789 Cognitive Dissonance
Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:46 | 3021354 JesusUp
JesusUp's picture

there are too many better things to read, or spend your time with

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:57 | 3020822 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Exactomundo!

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:20 | 3020644 MDCCLXXVI
MDCCLXXVI's picture

As I peruse the comments, I see most of the comments are:

1. Idiots or those who have not read any of her works from cover to cover.

2. Anti-rand propagandists

3. Socialists/Commies

I notice the deft avoidance of actually talking about any of her philosophies, instead referencing her "hypocricy" and receiving welfare, her 1960s opinion of the Israel/Palestine conflict, her past, or her relationships.

Try criticizing her philosophies, as ad hominems fall right into her predictions of her critics ... They avoid objective criticism and attack her person.

Next.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:54 | 3021094 waterhorse
waterhorse's picture

Is this irony?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:57 | 3021112 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Why would you think so?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 23:54 | 3022746 crusty curmudgeon
crusty curmudgeon's picture

Because an idiot who clearly hasn't read much of her work is criticizing others for not doing the same thing.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:06 | 3020592 Jay
Jay's picture

The article is long the mud slinging that went on between objectivists and libertarians but short the actual aguments--which are far more interesting. It's more instructive to study the actual arguments. They're out there too.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:58 | 3020568 borisspeaks
borisspeaks's picture

Ron Paul is NOT an Objectivist.  He submits to mysticism, moral equivalency, and states rights.  There are no states rights.  There is no god.  Morality is black and white.  The feckless Libertarian political movement will never offer a compelling alternative because it does not offer a compelling moral alternative.  Individual rights, rational self-interest, capitalism, and reason is the definitive alternative to the established order.  This is, after all, the nature of America's founding, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.  Ayn Rand completed the moral-philosophical American revolution that began with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:40 | 3020507 devo
devo's picture

All Rand cared about was being accepted by intellectuals. She invented a (flawed) philosophy in order to do this. She was a highly insecure yet an egotistical woman. That's why there's so much contradition and conflict in her interviews and writing and lifestyle.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:23 | 3020654 MDCCLXXVI
MDCCLXXVI's picture

Classic example of criticising her without actually saying anything. Followed immediately by ad hominems.

What are you so afraid of?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:57 | 3020565 infotechsailor
infotechsailor's picture

A Good debate about how Rand viewed libertarianism, although I question how exactly she defined libertarianism, and her distinctions between the "libertarian movement" of that time as she perceived it, and what true libertarianism means and the players involved today.

Most of this article was hearsay, however... and really has no place in the debate. Stories about a Randian and how they were treated. As if the internal politics of some club has anything to do with anything.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 16:38 | 3021765 devo
devo's picture

Yeah, has the word libertarian changed since her time? I know liberal used to mean conservative, so these definitions are constantly changing...

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:48 | 3020529 Mr Joshua
Mr Joshua's picture

Do you have any examples of unforgivable (she isn't one of her fictional superheroes) contradictions?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 16:35 | 3021757 devo
devo's picture

She lionized capitalist, yet she leached off her husband's income while writing her novels and went on social security/medicare later in life. So while that fits with her selfishness, it doesn't fit with her championing of Capitalism. These are just a few obvious ones.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 18:19 | 3022039 Mr Joshua
Mr Joshua's picture

So her husband funded her work? In what way is that counter to capitalism?

So she took back, in medicare, the money that she had previously paid into it throughout her life? How is that counter to capitalism? In fact she taught that it is one's moral responsibility to take back from the state that which was stolen, and that to not do so would do nothing to further the cause of freedom:

" But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

 

In Atlas Shrugged, **spoiler alert** the heroic pirate stole from the state to refund the inhabitants of Galt's Gulch their income taxes in gold billion.

 

How is this obviously contradictory? It is obviously consistent.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:59 | 3020354 rustymason
rustymason's picture

Sounds like a fun club, if you are a child and want to be dominated by a Jewish bitch.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:51 | 3020307 In Vino Veritas
In Vino Veritas's picture

Deleted - posted in wrong place.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:47 | 3020301 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Ayn Rand Phillip Rothschilds mistress...whatever. 

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:49 | 3020533 Mr Joshua
Mr Joshua's picture

Was rothschild a fan of the gold standard?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:56 | 3020810 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

I dont know...he was a big fan of Jews though.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:55 | 3021101 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

I dont know..

 

At least you're consistent.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:30 | 3020225 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

Much ado about nothing. 

The vast majority in this country and the world don't even know who Ayn Rand was or what libertarianism is and it's the vast majority who elect "our" corporate owned "leaders."

And that's as much time as I'll waste on this subject.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:12 | 3020158 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

When you're running trillion dollar deficits whatever one's "philosophy" might be is irrelevant when talking "the law of large numbers." One cannot command "higher equity prices" as presupposed here. To claim as such such gives lie to the entire enterprise actually. One can command LOWER equity prices quite easily however. Unfortunately "that leads to entire States and municipalities going bankrupt." Where do I stand when it comes to future stock prices? I HAVE NO CLUE. But I can tell you where I stand on my view of risk and "risk related assets." I would be long those things. That does not mean PRICE however moves higher. Kapiche!?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:23 | 3020195 CPL
CPL's picture

Price and value are now so disconnected that any paper offered from any investment vechicle might as well be considered a sham.  I would even go so far that the only paper worth anything right now are while life insurance policies because the insurance companies are forced to match inflation as it effects their balance sheet.  Even then if the denomination used is USD then it's a downhill slide to zero on "payout" by the end of the insurance term.

 

The current situation commands that investment be postponed and personal equity must be preserved.  Physical copper, Gold, Silver and Oil are good to keep the same value of what you have.  All gains and loses on them are illusionary as they are only as good as the denomination it's traded in.  Who knows.  In five years maybe we are talking blue backs and not green backs or maybe everyone ends up with an EBT card by law which would mean there would be no money in the system, only credits worth as much as monopoly money while the fed juggles dwindling commodities out the back door.

 

Best best.  Learn how to buy in bulk to hedge inflation on the direct costs of food, possibly clothing soon.  The days of 1 dollar five packs of plain white t's from walmart is going away so hedge accordingly on what makes sense.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:05 | 3020373 markettime
markettime's picture

I thought most whole life policies and other cash value policies were tied to US treasuries? Meaning this low interest rate environment is killing them slowly. And you have to look at their definition of inflation, because chances are it is just like the Feds.....

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:09 | 3020133 Gohn Galt
Gohn Galt's picture

Murray Rothbard got Rand’s number.  Slavish dependence.  She worked so well as Rothschild’s mistress. 

As conflicted and bitchy as she is, we all know it was that whinny bitch Rothschild that wrote that eye stabbing speech of John Galt.

I like this link.  A quick overview of Rand's book coming to life before our eyes.  He reminds people that the $ was used in ancient egypt 8,000 yrs ago with another family that was known as Rockefeller.  $ means to purify by scourge and punishment.  See, Benny Burn is doing God's work.

http://www.kt70.com/~jamesjpn/articles/atlas_shrugged.htm

 

 

"A holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown. Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."-- British General Charles Cornwallis to General George Washington

 

 


 

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:29 | 3021252 BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

"She worked so well as Rothschild’s mistress."

She was someone's mistress? Have you seen her picture? Yuk.

Couldn't Rothschild afford an $80,000 an hour hooker like Elliot Spitzer?

Wait, did I just call Elliot Spitzer an $80,000 an hour hooker?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:32 | 3020247 SamAdams
SamAdams's picture

Oh, you think?  What is your take on Dr. Paul's privatization and gold standard?  This is the true test...

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:03 | 3020111 midtowng
midtowng's picture

It's interesting how many of the comments here are "Ayn Rand doesn't matter, and you suck".

Obviously to get such hateful responses means that Ayn Rand does still matter.

Based on the fact that the movie just came out (and flopped), and that her followers include a recent Fed chief, her influence has never been more powerful, and destructive.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:13 | 3020162 Mr Joshua
Mr Joshua's picture

He stopped being a follower long before he became fed chief. Were his policies not exactly the opposite of what Rand preached?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 15:02 | 3021425 crusty curmudgeon
crusty curmudgeon's picture

What makes Greenspan so pathetic is that his policies were exactly opposite of what he himself believed and continued to believe.  In short, he was a sell-out of the worst sort.  I hope there is a special place in hell for people like him.

His earlier (Rand influenced) writing is quite good: 

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:55 | 3020078 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

As an astute objectivist, I abhor Ayn Rand.

"Going Galt" is actually great concept.  Too bad she just never practiced it as she was reliant on rich men, and at the end of her life, government.

It's actually quite hilarious that our rich wealthy Baby Boomer class, who blindly ahere to her concepts of how to live life, end up also like her: being parts of the biggest hypcrites in the history of th world.

Alan Greenspan swears by this cunt.  As if you needed to know anything else......

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:20 | 3020188 AynRandFan
AynRandFan's picture

Shizzmoney

So, you are "astute" and you think people who agree with Rand are "hilarious", "blind", "hypocritical" and that she was a "cunt".

With arguments like this, you have a great future in any field involving nothing more than manual labor.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:12 | 3020155 daxtonbrown
daxtonbrown's picture

When Rand was on, she was on.

 

Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads."  Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent",

 

But face it, there are no perfect philosophies.Both pure objectivism and libertarrianism have problems. They still beat the living fuck out of Obamamian neo-Marxism or pants wetting Keynesians like Krugman or Bernanke.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:57 | 3021412 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

But...but...but...I thought Joos was Arabs? Something about them owning the "holy land" which, last time I looked, wuz on the Arabian Peninsula.

So, are they from the holy land or not? Wuz there however many tribes of 'em living in Palestine way back when? If there were, then they are Arabs, right?

No? Sorry, I must be an idiot...

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:59 | 3020093 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Can I have your picture?

I'm making a new dart board.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:53 | 3020068 Mr Joshua
Mr Joshua's picture

The postscript says all that needs to be said - the author hasn't read any Rand.

If you actually read her journal entries (that you're using to call her a serial killer worshiper), pages 20 - through 48, you will realise that it's all smear. 

 

Why would someone who knows nothing about Ayn Rand or Objectivism presume to be qualified to post an article with an image of someone worshiping her 'cult'?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!