Ayn Rand and Special Needs Kids

Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
32 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A customer just saw my Who is John Galt shirt. He said he wrote a paper in college called "An Objection to Objectivism". He said in an Objectivist world special needs kids would all be gassed. He objected to Rand only valuing those who were the best and brightest and not caring about the rest. He was clearly passionate about the issue so I respectfully disagreed and he said the books are interesting and that was his only objection. I was surprised and perplexed as to how he came to that conclusion. Any thoughts???


All Comments

  • Posted by Abaco 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't deal with any of them anymore. I don't even deal with our school district (the worst of the bunch).

    Many public school administrators actually hate special needs kids and their families.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You're going to hate me (more)...

    "In my home town sixty years ago when I was a child, my mother and father used to take me and my brothers and sisters out to Swope Park on Sunday afternoons. It was a wonderful place for kids, with picnic grounds and lakes and a zoo. But a railroad line cut straight through it.

    One Sunday afternoon a young married couple were crossing these tracks. She apparently did not watch her step, for she managed to catch her foot in the frog of a switch to a siding and could not pull it free. Her husband stopped to help her.

    But try as they might they could not get her foot loose. While they were working at it, a tramp showed up, walking the ties. He joined the husband in trying to pull the young woman's foot loose. No luck --

    Out of sight around the curve a train whistled. Perhaps there would have been time to run and flag it down, perhaps not. In any case both men went right ahead trying to pull her free. . .and the train hit them.

    The wife was killed, the husband was mortally injured and did later, the tramp was killed -- and testimony showed that neither man made the slightest effort to save himself.

    The husband's behavior was heroic. . .but what we expect of a husband toward his wife: his right, and his proud privilege, to die for his woman. But what of this nameless stranger? Up to the very last second he could have jumped clear. He did not. He was still trying to save this woman he had never seen before in his life, right up to the very instant the train killed him. And that's all we'll ever know about him.

    THIS is how a man dies.

    This is how a MAN. . .lives!"

    -Robert A. Heinlein's address to the graduating class at Annapolis, "The Pragmatics of Patriotism"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd rather not. How many people read that in 1957, took the shit at his word instead of reading it for themselves and then never picked up AS because of it. Ugh... destroyer!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by readthebook 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    It's a lot deeper than initiation of force or someones feelings about what they want to do or not do. Those aren't primaries. If someone thinks you have a duty to serve others, nothing you say about initiation of force or what you want to do will make any difference to him. On the other side of it, your responsibility for your own children is not an altruistic duty.

    In today's world, thanks to the destruction of those who think in terms of progressive education, unchosen duties and control over education, the need to deal with "special needs" students has become much greater. See Ayn Rand's essay "The Comprachicos" in her anthology Return of the Primitive. Anyone genuinely concerned with special needs children should look here first.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 1 month ago
    I don't think he'd read much of the interesting books. Sounds more like he skimmed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Good point. I was thinking that he talked fast enough that he probably didn't want me to respond. It more like he was talking at me. Hope I can talk to him another time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 11 years, 1 month ago
    I would want to know what he means by special needs. That is way to broad a category he's using. I'd consider Steven Hawking special needs, but his physical limitations haven't stopped his brain.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Theobjectivist-laciar 11 years, 1 month ago
    Non-Agression aside...
    Personally I consider that NGO's would take care of that, and in that way welfare is a voluntary, and really valuable for once. Since receiving something that someone was forced to give you (welfare through taxes) is not moral and is basically robbery.
    An objectivist world doesn't mean that everyone is an objectivist -you should tell him-, it just means that everyone is free to do whatever he wants with his own life, and that no one can force him into anything.
    (I personally take part in a NGO because of personal motives (Learning, investigating, etc. about the poor people) )
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 11 years, 1 month ago
    I have a special needs child. Sounds like your customer is a ding-dong.

    You want to see the horrors of government? Try raising a child with special needs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The Rand fans outnumbered him today. Six positive comments to his one. One customer I have spoken to before believes he could not possibly have read any of her books. He said the professor should have given it right back to him and refused to grade it. Another customer told me her and her 10th grade daughter watched parts 1 and 2 and enjoyed them both. Her daughter plans on reading the book.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I have NO idea and that's what I'd ask him. I'd say I've read many of Rand's books and never walked a away with that idea so what, exactly, did he read that put that in his head? I'd let him know I was seriously interested in reading that part because maybe you're just way off base..(lol) which just might put him on a mission of proving his point to you...which will mean he'll have to do some extensive research to NOT find it and that alone would be an education...IF he has that kind of gumption.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. I thinks it's like typical stories and movies focus on protagonists who are good-looking and at the top of their field, even if the story isn't about that. It doesn't mean the authors are saying only good-looking successful people matter.

    I would direct him to Fountainhead, in which the esteemed leaders of industry and public opinion are the antagonists.

    If he's into helping people with special needs, he's probably met people who go into helping for the wrong reasons: Ellsworth Toohey, Peter's g/f at the end of Fountainhead, the religious women who refused to help James Taggart's wife when she was suicidal, and the sanctimonious little shrew who doled out other people's money at the motor plant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You have a great opportunity. He's at least talking about Rand. Just ask respectful questions, questions that will make him come to objectivist conclusions on his own. The biggest thing is to get him reading the books, even if only so he can be equipped with facts about how bad they are. What if you gave him the film AS Part I and said you know he'll probably hate it and part of your understanding of objectivism is he can/should hate/love things without regard for your opinion.

    There is a decent chance if you plant some questions he'll become a Rand fan within years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I have run into a few people who told me they didn't like Rand and admitted they had not read her books. They said they heard enough to know they rejected her ideas. The easy way out. Let someone else tell you what you think. Great point about Rand being the opposite of those who just stoke fear.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    He appears to be in his mid fifties so I am guessing he wrote this in the early to mid eighties. I think you are right. Means her critics have bee around a while.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    My guess is people see political talking heads yelling at each other about who's to blame for your problems and politicians shamelessly trying to get pit people against one another. The Republican side sometimes claims to be the side supping Rand's values, a claim I categorically reject. I see these clips of them shameless trying to get people angry at the their neighbors over religion or sex, and I can't stand them.

    Until I read Rand, I thought Rand was just a tool in this stupid struggle of politicians stoking people's fear to get elected. It turns out Rand is about the OPPOSITE of that.

    I don't recall ever making specific claims about Rand, but I recall telling people I didn't like Rand, which was foolish. I just believed things I had heard.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    He is a regular customer so I hope we get a chance to talk about it again. I don't want to argue with him but I would like to hear some clarification.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    No initiation of force is what I should have thought of. I was so surprised I couldn't think of anything at the time. Not sure how at the end he said the books were interesting. If you think they are based on a philosophy that sanctions the gassing of children why would you say that?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 1 month ago
    "I was surprised and perplexed as to how he came to that conclusion. Any thoughts???"

    Maybe by being persuaded by the enemies of objectivism who socially profess that respecting individual rights is a juvenile idea or John Galt is a serial killer or an objectivist's long term happiness is morally obtained by pulling up the life preserver when hundreds are drowning.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    He said we should respect everyone and not just the Hank Reardons of the world. I sensed he had a personal connection to special needs kids so I chose to listen. I did not get that from reading AS at all.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo