This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 - 09:45 | 3020047 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

I am disappointed by this article which I didn't read (I saw the title, though, and there was no claim that Ayn Rand caused the incident in Fukushima).

 

What is the point of this article?  

I didn't realize that the worship of Ayn Rand was happening on a massive scale and rapidly becoming a societal problem.

 

Another load of crap by GW.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:58 | 3020090 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Massive scale worship of Ayn Rand? Probably not. But here at the Hedge, Ayn is a major Zero Hero whose words are often treated as though they were found in the Libertarian Bible.

She's just a writer. And a very dead one too. But not a martyr. A writer.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:36 | 3020018 CH1
CH1's picture

What is the point of this, George?

The lady had her problems, and I disagree with her on significant points, but her writings have been super-helpful to a lot of people.

What's the profit of dragging her through the mud and majoring on old mud fights?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:22 | 3020415 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

The point is stimulating a novel thought for it's inherent value. It's torture for all involved.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:46 | 3020295 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Because she was an asshole, and it's fun to smear dead assholes.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:33 | 3020009 matsoR
matsoR's picture

For those interested, the audiobook "Atlas Shrugged" is available here.

(Skip to 05:15 if you dont want to hear all the preliminaries)

 

Or maybe you would like to listen to the Anthem Audiobook.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:20 | 3019973 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So George, is this a warning for our perspectives of Barack Obama? If we disagree we are racist haters and to be shunned? Ego is a dangerous attribute to be cultivated. If left to a lesser of evils, I think I would still take Rand over Obama. Rand perspective would leave many in it's wake, but would incentivise production as compared to Obama who's policies will ultimately bring us all to our knees, but to some people's perspective, the better, as we will all then be "equal". Ultimately, society should reflect the nature of its people, not of a few elites pursuing their utopian dreams. If we are a bunch of greedy shits, then so be it, but i will never agree that "society" has the right to make me into anything it deems proper. Generosity is a personal thing and no amount of government "taking" will make us in anyway generous, only slaves of an ideal.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:47 | 3020054 sumo
sumo's picture

"So George, is this a warning for our perspectives of Barack Obama?"

WTF dude. Hardly anyone cheerleads for Obama here. He is bought and paid for, by Wall St - that's almost an axiom on ZH.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:09 | 3020603 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Never said anyone hear was romancing the big O, I was simply suggesting that many out there are and there is always a problem when anyone becomes "godlike", especially someone who is not a fringe group but the leader of the strongest country in the world. But given the choice of overblown egos, I would still pick Rand over Obama.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:14 | 3019963 madcuban
madcuban's picture

George, you ignorant slut. Once again you have wasted everyone's time with trash not fit to print anywhere. Many of those quotes can be interpreted in more than one way. One point, hippies today are a blip on the radar in the libertarian population, easily not the case in the 60s. So what if she isn't fond of Reagan or Carter. Reagan was only a discounted version of Goldwater. I don't understand why you bother writing all these baseless articles. Every one your writings is shit.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:43 | 3021340 tango
tango's picture

No, not every one -just most. He appeals to that vanguard of posters who live life according to conspiracy. Thus, we find out that Rand was a closet communist, in pay of the NWO, a Jew for Israel, an agent of the Rothschilds or secretly backed by mysterious groups bent on global domination. Yet these powerful cabals are so effing sloppy that guys who sit around posting on ZH all day know the intimate details.

GW appears more and more frantic, trying to impress with sillier and sillier "articles" that are short on originality and long on quoting others. Thus we go from rhapsodizing over the Iranian theocracy to dark conspiracies about oil spills and nuclear accidents to savaging a woman (via cut and paste yet again) who published almost 50 years ago.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:02 | 3019941 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' bickering among themselves.

In the end, all of them remain 'americans'.

Which is the important bit to know.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:39 | 3020023 CH1
CH1's picture

Can you clarify what 'Americans' means these days?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:50 | 3019921 Vooter
Vooter's picture

LOL...her death must have been pretty funny, and satisfying! Whaddya have to say about that, Ayn? Oh, wait, you can't say anything--you're DEAD! How's that working out for you?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:46 | 3019913 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

I'd hit that.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 23:58 | 3025878 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

I mean if she wasn't, you know, non-living.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:42 | 3019909 AynRandFan
AynRandFan's picture

It is obvious that this article mostly confuses interpersonal conflict with philosohic disagreement. Rand had no respect for libertarianism because it has no philosophical core. Minimizing government for its own sake takes no position on the morality of selfishness versus selflessness.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 15:41 | 3021542 I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

This is a sticking point to me about Randian values.  They put up logic/reason on a pedastal as the greatest virtue.  But in the name of liberty (the libertarians do the same thing), but shouldn't the greatest virtue if you really think about it be Free Will?  Reason and Liberty are NOT the same thing!

  An individual can  choose of his own Free Will what he wants to be believe or what philosohpy to live by.  The other part is they assume people are Reasonable and rational but all the empirical evidence suggest a lot of irrationality in Free Will choices that people make.  And some people are just crazy.  Another sticking point is the anti-religious dogma.  If we have Free Will, doesn't each invididual get to choose what to believe for himself?? 

On having a philosophical core, isn't that also a choice? 

But isn't argument for minimizing government the same as argument for maximizing individuals' freedom and non-interference?  Wouldn't maximizing Free Will be a core philisophical belief, a good for its own sake?  notwithstanding the selfishness vs. selflessness argument.  Wouldn't it be up to each individual to be selfish or selfless because that is what they want to be in their lives?   Again, it boils down to Free Will, not Reason.

Check your premises indeed. 

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:41 | 3019905 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Thanks George W., I found this an interesting read.

Libertarians are told to study Rand, but, despite my leanings in this direction, I must admit I haven't got round to reading any. 

In this vid, though, I see a pretty nasty Zionist:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

who falls prey to all the usual one-sided bullshit about 'terrorists'... ie, if you wear a government uniform and slaughter women and children, it's ok; do it in plain clothes and you are a terrorist, no matter what monstrous provocation proceeds the act, or what primitive, inaccurate munitions you have to hand to strike back at the people who have dispossessed you.

From what I can make out, in her books she appears to offer some nice analyses of the nature of government, but that's about it.

Looks like she's going to be shuffled even further down the (ever-growing) pile of books to be read....

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:53 | 3021080 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Rand did not come off well when attacked as she was on the Donahue show (big surprise). In contrast view this interview by Tom Snyder who treats her with respect. The third part of the interview is especially enlightening. Rand predicts the current crisis, says there's still time for individual Americans to save the sinking ship, the impetus will come from the right but not the religious right and that modern conservatives are worse than liberals. There's a poignant moment at the very end when Snyder says "God bless you," to Rand and she reciprocates.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:26 | 3019885 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Ayn was a product of her upbringing ,as we all are.

She escaped it in Atlas Shrugged but increasing age caused reversion.

Happens to most people.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:39 | 3019900 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Her mother confiscated all her toy dolls when she was a kid and gave them to charity. That could do it I would think.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:02 | 3019943 northerngirl
northerngirl's picture

I think it might have been when the Communists confiscated her fathers business in Russia.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:22 | 3019876 dadoody
dadoody's picture

Rand and a few pseudo-Libertarians as well confuse Anarchism with Libertarianism. There can't be peace and freedom without laws as anarchy never exists on its own - its usually a transitional period. 

Rand herself was a bit of a double speaker and hypocrit. She railed against public entilements, while receiving medicare benefits through an alias, so I don't really hold her to be much of a principled person.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:28 | 3020986 smoot27
smoot27's picture

You are an intellectually bankrupt buffoon.  Your wealth is confiscated from your income to fund Medicare as it is with Social Security.  You would be a fool not to accept its benefits even if you oppose the system in its entirety.  Give us a choice not to pay in and then you have an argument.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:57 | 3020350 In Vino Veritas
In Vino Veritas's picture

I refer you to my post http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-liberta... .  Her use of public entitlements was exactly within her philosophy written years before she fell ill.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:54 | 3020070 riphowardkatz
riphowardkatz's picture

there is no honor in being a martyr, as long as you do not advocate for more you are entitled to what the society you live in offers. 

or as someone said "did standing in bread line in russia mean you were an advocate of communism" 

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:48 | 3019918 AynRandFan
AynRandFan's picture

Libertarianism promotes a minimal view of government. Anarchism promotes no government.

There is nothing hypocritical about driving across a bridge one opposed as a waste of taxpayer money.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:44 | 3020293 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Your comment demonstrates one of two things: (1) you really know very little about the various schools of thought that are grouped together under the umbrella of  "anarchism," or (2) you are intentionally trying to perpetuate the scariness associated with "anarchism" that has been carefully nurtured by TPTB for 100+ years.

Did you know that the terms "libertarian (little-l)" and "anarchist" were once used synonomously?

Now, if you want to level criticism at the "anarchism" described by Bakunin, or Kropotkin, or, from some perspectives, Tolstoy, Thoreau, Dorothy Day, or -gasp- Noam Chomsky, go right ahead; plenty of fodder there. Otherwise, GTFO.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:28 | 3021256 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Dealing with fools does tend to become grating, doesn't it?

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:47 | 3021360 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Yes.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 16:10 | 3021660 falak pema
falak pema's picture

double wyes, I swish I could wsay swhat i really sfelt. 

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:11 | 3019863 Coldfire
Coldfire's picture

To those who have not done so, I recommend reading Ayn Rand's works in the context of these critiques. Try "Philosophy: Who Needs It" or "The Virtue of Selfishness". Rand may have not been a libertarian, but her philosophy is signally liberating. There is nothing like it. And she called the disaster we are living through today in "Atlas Shrugged". Rand's ideas are like conceptual speed. IMO, good, good stuff. But decide for yourself. You just might like Objectivism. You might like it a lot.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:09 | 3019858 Catullus
Catullus's picture

Good article.

It's difficult for people on the brain dead left to understand that libertarians are not Randians. It's tough to square the circle when libertarians accept subjective value theory and the Randians claim to be "Objectivists". In reality, there is no philosophy called "Objectivism", it was whatever Rand made up in here apartment.

Rand wrote a couple of good books. That was it.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:14 | 3020571 Bob
Bob's picture

Perhaps the confusion on the left is due to the pervasive conflation of the two by those very people who trumpet themselves as "libertarians" always about to "go Galt." Is ZH not Mecca for those people?

Of course, the confusion of the libertarian objectivists would seem profound.  People in finance believing themselves to be much more than the "parasites" Rand loathed so well is incomprehensible to me.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:41 | 3021036 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Perhaps the confusion is due to the inability of many people to find value in a person's work despite the fact that they may have other disagreements with that person. Can you tell me who are the inviolate thinkers who have informed your intellectual development? I'd be interested to hear the views of such perfect individuals.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:08 | 3019857 Slartibartfast
Slartibartfast's picture

Ayn Hubbard or L. Ron Rand?

Perhaps her most ridiculous assertion has been the notion that those with a social conscience are somehow automatically 'collectivist', which is patent nonsense.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 08:27 | 3019886 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Well, they ARE collectivist if they believe 'the collective' has the right to enforce the redistribution of non-natural-resource wealth in the name of their 'social conscience'.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 07:50 | 3019823 El
El's picture

Ouch. She sure had a way with words. Objectivism isn't my thing, but Rand sure hit the nail on the head with what we are seeing today when she wrote Atlas Shrugged. It seems to me that one should entertain ideas from many places, whether or not they accept them, so I don't particularly care what Rand thought of libertarians. ;)

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 07:30 | 3019804 egoist
egoist's picture

I don't find today's libertarians to be quite like those of 20 years back.

The left hates her ideas b/c they clash with almost everything they stand for. The right piece meals some of it and merges it w/ god.

People here seem to be mostly bomb throwing nihilists.

I recommend poking around here at some of her A/Vs:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_library

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 06:02 | 3019740 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

No doubt Rand was a bit of a psycho - the main problem she had was failure to evaluate human beings interactions for mutual benefit - and the benefit is not always rational or tangible.

 

As John Donne so eloquently put it;

 

'No Man is an Island'

 

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any Manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

 

However, by observing that human beings act out of self interest does not make the observer immoral, neither does pursuit of self interest. 

 

The natural law, which might be stated in its utmost simplicity as "Whosoever infringes the property of another human being without their consent commits an unlawful act" provides us with both a source of justice and virtue - something it appears that Rand became increasingly unwilling to accept - rather, believing that moral virtue was a result of pursuing selfish interests, regardless of the costs which might be borne by others.

 

For clarity though, I should admit I am both a political and economic anarchist - price and justice are both means, and are best created by myriad actors trying to resolve these problems.  Price arises from voluntary transactions, and justice is required to settle involuntary transactions - however both are trying to achieve the mean - the more actors, the more accurate the results.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:36 | 3021017 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

the main problem she had was failure to evaluate human beings interactions for mutual benefit

 

This simply isn't true. Rand insisted on trading value for value. She abhorred societal norms which insisted that individuals sacrifice themselves for a lazy elite class. Criticism based on reality is far more effective than criticism based on a lack of understanding of the subject.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 09:40 | 3020029 sumo
sumo's picture

"moral virtue was a result of pursuing selfish interests, regardless of the costs which might be borne by others."

Rand was a narcissist, and a hypocrite who took Medicare and SS. How anyone could have the slightest respect for her is beyond me.

As a professional predator, she would have failed on Wall St or K St - she was nowhere near the Pro leagues. But she could have done very well for herself in Scientology.

 

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:52 | 3020322 In Vino Veritas
In Vino Veritas's picture

While one might disagree with Rand, calling her a hypocrite over her use of SS, etc. is the parroting of an ignorant (or deliberately incorrect) article written by someone who obviously disliked her and/or her philosophy. She acted exactly in accordance with her writings. Here is an excerpt from her article in "The Objectivist" (June 1966) - years before she fell ill:

“The same moral principles and considerat­ions apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployme­nt insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifical­ly, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers­. 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.”

Just like the Moon landing hoax nonsense, this "hypocrisy" meme has taken life. A pity.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:53 | 3021091 smoot27
smoot27's picture

It's interesting that you currently have 6 dislikes for a point that offers nothing but fact.  As mentioned SS and Medicare confiscate your income to fund their ponzi schemes.  You would be a fool to not take any refund you can even if you disagree with the entirety of the progam. I abhor the Social Security progam, but you can bet that I will take back whatever income given that I have no choice to decline participation.  Those making hypocrisy claims are intellectually bankrupt or self-aggrandizing fools.   

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:22 | 3021215 crusty curmudgeon
crusty curmudgeon's picture

Nothing but fact my ass.  Anyone who believes that "She acted exactly in accordance with her writings" is completely ignorant of Ayn Rand.

I love how so many people on ZH are experts and profess to know everything about people and their beliefs and yet continually misrepresent them and make absurd statements like the one quoted above.

Here's a couple of simple questions:  Who was her husband and why?  Why did she have an affair with Nathenial Branden? 

Hint:  These answers are not consistent with her writings.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 16:49 | 3021781 In Vino Veritas
In Vino Veritas's picture

With regard to her use of SS being consistent with her writings, it is a statement of fact (the reference is given).  If you have a quote from her contradicting this, please provide it.  The rest of your response is irrelevant to my post.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 23:48 | 3022739 crusty curmudgeon
crusty curmudgeon's picture

You made a statement that had nothing to do with SS.  I pointed out that you were wrong.  Now you claim it is irrelevant.

Perhaps you ought to learn how to write.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 09:54 | 3023318 In Vino Veritas
In Vino Veritas's picture

Fortunately, the full thread is visible for all to see.  Those left reading it can see in my post the following: "...over her use of SS, etc."  Your claims as to who is wrong aside, the readers can determine for themselves.

In my view, you just want to win the argument with random assertion and ad hominem attack.  The floor is yours, have at it.

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 10:43 | 3020284 JesusUp
JesusUp's picture

incisive

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