16

Anybody here ever read Ayn Rand's works?

Posted by deleted 2 months, 1 week ago to Philosophy
125 comments | Share | Flag

Not intending to be objectionable or insensitive, I have to ask, especially considering some of the responses I have received lately:
Has Anybody Here Ever Read Ayn Rand's Works?
Yes, yes, I've been told a million times not to exaggerate so I know perhaps even most people here have some familiarity with her works and words.
But there are too many others who seem to have not the least concept.
Rand advocated, as her political philosophy, individual freedom. From her premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life, she reasoned -- and I honestly see no other conclusion -- that therefore it is wrong to initiate force.
She quite explicitly opposed, to name one, the income tax, as well as other forms of theft.
Therefore, despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
Now, please, you who are determined to react rather than think, note I said "libertarian," NOT "Libertarian."
Even though I have several times explained the differences between the two words, some leap-to-wrong-conclusion addicts keep trying to argue with me, without checking their premises.
For you folks who have not read her works and her words, Ayn Rand was probably the world's foremost advocate of reason ... maybe ever.
She was also, though actually allied with many thousands of others, a leading advocate of human freedom.
Only a cultist, only very misinformed cultist, can continue to deny that "libertarian" is the correct term.
She was not an "anarchist," not an agorist, not a voluntaryist, but I think she was a free marketeer and thus she was, yes, a libertarian -- though a minarchist.
So, I ask again: You people who keep calling yourselves "conservative" and/or "Republican," how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?
I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."
Finally, and I'm sure there will be hurt feelings from this, why on Earth don't you check your spelling as well as your premise?
I see comments here that are downright embarrassing because of miserable grammar and sloppy spelling.
If we truly care about truth, about reason, about Ayn Rand's legacy, shouldn't we be much more careful about how we represent her?
SOURCE URL: https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/philosophy-on-one-foot


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ColHogan 2 months, 1 week ago
    One thing. Ayn Rand didn't have "beliefs." A belief is an assertion accepted with no proof. Rand could tell you why anything she said was true.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by cwdonald 2 months, 1 week ago
      I've have and have read all of her books. I was one of those original Objectivist promoters who ran the Objectivist lecture series-even have a confirmation letter from Barbara Branden from those great days. Subscribed to The Ayn Rand Letter, to the Objectivist Forum, the Intellecutal Activists all of that. I am hard core Rand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PURB 2 months, 1 week ago
      Actually, Rand used the words "I believe" not infrequently, esp in her responses to questions. For example, during Q & A at West Point, Rand said: Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages." The fact that she had reasons for her beliefs does not mean she didn't have them. I have some even in manuscript available for sale. Check out PEN ULTIMATE RARE BOOKS, the largest collection of rare, signed and manuscript Ayn rand on the planet. https://www.abebooks.com/pen-ultimate...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 1 week ago
        Most humans today could be seen as savages since they can be seen as primitive, uncivilized, and ignorant of advanced knowledge. Rand could not have existed to become a philosopher and novelist without modern knowledge and methods all built upon previous discoveries by those who could be seen as more and more savage the farther back one goes. That is not to say, as one math professor of mine at UW Madison who believed that somehow we are to pay reparations in the name of those who discovered past knowledge, etc.
        I thought that Rand was a little off with her comments about primitive people not being civilized or not have been able to discover the laws of nature. Discoveries are made very slowly due to lack of the resources and methods of technology upon which new advancements are made.
        The other thing that bothered me in AS was her description of some persons being "little" when just doing small jobs and depending on things such as cosmetics to feel good.
        As for the concept of 'belief', look up the philosophical discussions of the difference between 'believing in' and 'believing that', the first believing regardless of facts and the second believing with facts and being able to change belief if the known facts change. The first could be called religious and the second scientific.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          "Savages" might be OK to describe people who were still ignorant -- or uninformed -- of advances in use by most of the rest of the world.
          Including, for example, the wheel.
          The so-called "Indians" -- the North Americans -- did have wheels, but used as decoration or in toys, not as ... well, as wheels. Note their travois.
          But especially note their truly savage ways of treating prisoners, such as slicing off eye-lids and leaving the victim, alive, staring into the sun; or the burning alive; or ... well, other horrible and vicious acts.
          Which were also "savage" when done by any others, including Europeans.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 2 months, 1 week ago
    I have used Rand to build a foundation for my personal approach to life for the last 50+ years. If a foundation is not built of quality materials ("bricks" need to be rational, high quality material, correct size and shape, organized to fit each other, etc,) the foundation will crumble. Same with all structures, if the foundation is faulty, it will not stand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Solver 2 months, 1 week ago
      There are some philosophies that are designed to crumble and take others down with them. The recent progression of post modernist preachings, which claim that truth, reason and knowledge is meaningless, is one of them. In a post-truth society, objective facts matter less than appeals to emotion. This is the new radical left.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
    https://www.theadvocates.org/2015/03/...

    (From the Ask Dr. Ruwart section in Volume 20, No. 11 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

    QUESTION: What is the difference between Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and libertarianism?Ayn Rand's Objectivism

    MY SHORT ANSWER: In my opinion, the differences are more cultural than real, in political matters. Both Objectivism and libertarianism are based on the non-aggression principle of honoring our neighbors’ choice (not initiating physical force, fraud or theft) and making things right with our victims if we don’t.

    Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy of life that includes not just political beliefs but strong and unified beliefs on virtually every aspect of human existence, including religion, art, romance, and so on. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a strictly political philosophy.

    Rand believed that government’s proper role was protection of rights and that government should have a monopoly on defensive force to fulfill this role. Many libertarians agree with her. Others believe that governments are a poor protector of rights and that competition in this realm is right and proper.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
      Overlooked is the fact that Libertarians could not accept Rand's ethics. Libs thus have no philosophical base for the political views, and that is why they are not themselves in agreement on many issues.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
        tdehaine, you make several errors in your short statement.
        AGAIN, there is a difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian." I do wish you would learn it.
        People who call themselves "libertarian" believe, as did Ayn Rand, that individuals own themselves and that initiatory force is wrong.
        And libertarians do indeed have a "philosophical base" for our political views even if not all libertarians accept entirely the Rand philosophical base.
        You seem to be, in Randian terms, concrete-bound and intentionally blind to facts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
          No errors. I already noted the "Lib/lib" difference....
          The fundamental differences between Obj. and Lib. are very significant. Since Libs are all over the place, I can't speak for you; but Libertarianism is certainly not a complete philosophy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
            I remember Gary Johnson pushing for repeal of marijuana restrictions, BUT still wanting illegality stamped on so- called “harder drugs”. If the libertarian party (however it’s spelled) is so intellectually inconsistent I can’t see it based on objectivist principles
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
              The LP platform states "we favor the repeal of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes." Some Libertarian candidates may take positions that are inconsistent with this platform, but that does not make the LP "intellectually inconsistent". And the LP does not claim to be "based on objectivist principles."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
                I was saying gory Johnson was intellectually inconsistent and therefore made the LP look bad. He would have made a bad presudent
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Compared to whom?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
                    The only real choices that had a snowballs chance of winning in 2016 were trump and Hillary. Johnson had zero chance of winning, and even if he did win he didn’t have the presence to actually get any of the libertarian ideas he was going to stick with actually implemented.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                  Gary Johnson's intellectually inconsistency (with embarrassing superficial, anti-intellectual floundering) was selected by the Libertarian Party, making it "look bad" because it is what they are. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                    I am by no means an expert on objectivism, but I could see the glaring inconsistencies in his positions and it just turned me off on him. I could see he would never even have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected, even though he might have actually done "some" good things if he had been.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                      His entire thinking process and premises make it impossible for him to be consistent. Just remember that the Libertarian Party chose those two bozos to represent them. Even good people pursuing individualism and freedom could not be elected in this country now. The LP is filled with inconsistencies itself, it has no idea what it takes to change a culture to make a better politics possible, then prove it again by trying to be taken seriously running into a presidential election with those two clowns. It's no wonder that Ayn Rand so thoroughly denounced them and they are no better now.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                        Gary Johnson and in particular his running mate didn’t take the whole process seriously. Given that, they weren’t going to be taken seriously. It was very obvious.

                        I agree than an intellectually consistent rational candidate cannot be elected in this emotionally drive. Culture.

                        Trump is not intellectually consistent either but DID get elected fortunately because Hillary was so bad. My hope is that he can slow down the march to socialism for a few years
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                          Trump had nothing to be consistent with other than emotionally tapping into the revolt against the establishment, which itself is a contradictory mixture of some good elements together with a crude tribalist populism, but none of it recognizing the intellectual requirements for changing the political culture. Meanwhile we see "libertarian" groupies who couldn't even come close to Trump trying to be taken seriously. At least one such troll is here on this forum 'downvoting' Ayn Rand's rejection of them.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                            A good argument could be made that the leftists are the intellectually consistent ones currently.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                              They typically have been for a very long time.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                                maybe we should take a lesson from the left and be consistent instead of granting them intellectual concessions like our leaders (and would be leaders) have done. (like Gary Johnson)
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                                  One difference is that the left now has more culture acceptance of its altruist-collectivist premises and feels 'safer' in openly espousing them. But it's not unlimited because there are still remnants of an American sense of life that rejects the left when it becomes too explicit in its egalitarian nihilist political demands. Republicans' 'me too but slower', and the inconsistency and inability of conservatives to defend individualism, feed the trend toward collectivism.

                                  There has never been a time when it was more important to consistently explain the proper principles of individualism and appeal to the American sense of life left while there is still some of it left to appeal to. When it's gone it will be much more difficult to speak out and convince anyone, and once collectivism is accepted and entrenched, speaking out against it becomes illegal.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • term2 replied 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                          • Posted by 2 months ago
                            If you are stupid and irrational enough to call me a "troll," you are merely showing your own ignorance and, sorry, stupidity.
                            That kind of nastiness is just why so many otherwise intelligent people just write off all Randians as "cultists" and, worse, "nuts."
                            I don't know who is "downvoting" you, but I certainly understand why anyone would.
                            In fact, on those rare occasions you have said something intelligent and worthwhile, I have voted up. But I won't again.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                              I am not "stupid", "irrational", "nasty", "cultist" or "nuts". No one called you a "troll"; the troll did not identify itself. Please review the guidelines for posting here. Those, including Ayn Rand herself, who reject your thesis claiming that she was a "libertarian though a minarchist" in what you call "neurotic opposition" to you are not "cultists".
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 2 months ago
                                It seems you forgot what you said, which I can understand, but it was:
                                ... Meanwhile we see "libertarian" groupies who couldn't even come close to Trump trying to be taken seriously. At least one such troll is here on this forum 'downvoting' Ayn Rand's rejection of them.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                                  I did not "forget", and it does not "seem" that way. You said that as part of a smear: You wrote, "If you are stupid and irrational enough to call me a 'troll'...". I am not "stupid" or "irrational" and did not name you as a troll. The troll did not identify itself. Please review the guidelines for posting here. Your thread started off by smearing people who reject your arguments misrepresenting Ayn Rand as "libertarian though a minarchist" as "cultists" engaging in what you call "neurotic opposition".
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
              term2, Gary Johnson is ONE INDIVIDUAL -- and one very inconsistent libertarian.
              No matter what he says or said, the Libertarian Party opposes all drug laws.
              (And he would still have been a better choice than Clinton or Trump.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
                He was the head of the party. He was such a neophyte that u doubt he could have done much at all as president. Where was Aleppo anyway?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Acing a geography quiz is not a prerequisite for being a good President. Gary Johnson would likely not have continued to enmesh us in the Syrian conflict.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
                    A president does need to be aware of what’s going on in the world to be able to make quick decisions when necessary. I at least knew it was in the Middle East somewhere and was involved in fighting. And I’m just a random flunky
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
                      I didn't think Johnson was the most prepared candidate that the Libertarians could have found but the a leppo issue was fake news fabricated by the MSM just as they continue to fabricate fake news to try to embarrass Trump. A leppo was never a critical issue for America and had it become one Johnson would have been prepared to respond. (Kudos to Trump for exposing the MSM on fake news.) Term you are right in saying Johnson was flawed. Not as flawed as either Trump or Hitlery in terms of support for individual liberty against big government, but flawed as all candidates are. So pick a real flaw that is pertinent if you want to have a meaningful discussion - even though it's moot at this point. Trump has the ball and despite his flaws we hope he scores for liberty against the formidable enemy of the state.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                        I always thought Trump could at best slow down the march to collectivism. Given the vitriol the establishment has shown towards him, I am not sure at this point that he even do a lot of that. Between getting investigated for "collusion" (whatever that is...), having his appointees decimated by Mueller for various and sundry "crimes", and his inability to get his other appointees actually through the senate, and the strange ability of the courts to stop anything important he has done, I just wonder.

                        Aleppo, and frankly anything we are doing in the middle east, is not at all important in the scheme of things for the USA. It did show that Johnson wasnt anywhere near being sufficiently aware of what was going on in the world for the president's job. He should just have answered that we shouldnt be in Iraq in any event, rather than just admitting he didnt even know what or where it was. The MSM got him on that one.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
                          Johnson would not have stood his ground against the MSM as Trump has either.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                            True. I am not sure IF there is another person who would stand up to them like Trump. I do love his TWEETS
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 2 months ago
                              Ayn Rand might have given Trump points for his moral self-confidence.
                              It's true he has stood up to the agitators, propagandists, and liars of the "news" media better than most presidents, certainly better than the "news" media's favorite targets, Republicans.
                              But another philosopher, Sidney Hook, pointed out that having the strength of one's convictions is not good enough if one's convictions are irrational or immoral, as for example Islamic suicide bombers.
                              Then, again, does Trump have any convictions?
                              And I don't mean the convictions the Democrats are hoping for from a trial.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                                Ayn Rand might have credited him for taking on the intellectual establishment, but then denounce him for having no idea how to do it as he turned himself into a pied piper with an emotional following spreading the wrong ideas in a false alternative, and further obstructing the spread of better ideas by giving opposition to the intellectual establishment a bad reputation.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                                I would say trump has certain reasonable convictions about honesty and saying what he thinks, imp importance of family, the importance of loyalty. Plus a lot of malleable “convictions” that seem to change in order to make deale
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
          So Gary Johnson was an example of an intellectually consistent libertarian?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 1 week ago
            Since the Libertarian Party was formed, I have not been able to find any consistent Objectivist libertarian, only those who are full of contradictions. The best are those who regard Objectivism as a rational philosophy. Johnson had many problems, just as does Paul Ryan who rapped himself in anti-Rand stuff due to his religion. Not sure why in the beginning he had all his staff read Atlas Shrugged.
            Ron Paul was probably the best.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 2 months, 1 week ago
    I have read most of her work, when I think I have read it all I find another and read that. She was an incredible philosopher and student of objectivist philosophy. She may have missed the mark in a few places but I think very few.
    Free market is the ultimate ability of men to make choices without being forced. Unfortunately for the experience of mankind this type of market place has seldom existed and not for long as those who would conquer and enslave have at their disposal a large populace that is not just willing but wanting to be led by anyone who will claim to offer them something for free in return for their freedom.
    I too have been surprised at times to find here at this meeting place those who often subscribe to the idea that it is important for man to be mostly free but not completely because they are convinced that one aspect or another of living must be under the control of a leader and a governing monster that has the right to inflict violence on all it deems a threat to its existence. This opens the door for all manner of tyranny and then it is only a matter of degree and time before there is no liberty left and all choices are inflicted by the munificent state that is stealing what it gives away.
    I used to think that there were some things that only a state could do and therefore it was assumed that a state must exist. After watching the destruction of a country that started out with ideals of individual liberty for 70 years and studying its past I realize that there was not a single president or politician who did not have an ulterior motive to destroy liberty to the degree they can and that they will benefit from.
    If individuals do not have the right to say no when they are forced to do something then they are not free at all. Voting (or begging for permission from the state) is not a viable form of protecting yourself from a state that, if it has not assumed immoral authority over the life of an individual yet will do so very soon, with the support of most of the neighbors who fear a free individual even if there is only one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Voting is much like playing the lottery: The odds are very much against your winning, but not buying a ticket means you have ZERO chance of winning.
      Voting is NOT accepting the result, no matter what, no matter if a tyrannical statism wins.
      But NOT voting is accepting the statist quo.
      Or at best it is foolish simply because tyrants will never remove themselves from office; a tyranny will never abolish itself.
      Voting might be seen as shooting people: It is not necessarily a nice thing to do, but when one is acting in self-defense, it is acceptable, and in some people's views, a duty.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 2 months ago
        Not voting isn't accepting the status quo but admitting there is no choice in which case choosing one evil over another is not making a choice to move in a positive direction but accepting that there is no choice and trying to find the lesser problem
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        Voting is not a lottery and not like shooting people. Vote when the limited choice may make a difference. When there is no essential difference, then don't vote, but that is not "accepting the status quo" any more than voting would be where the choice is beyond your control.

        The current situation is not a random lottery, it is a consequence of the basic ideas that are accepted across the culture. That is what determines the kind of people who are on the ballot who continue to dominate as most electable. Vote when it may make a difference, but change in the long run depends on the spread of the rights ideas.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 2 months, 1 week ago
    I have what is purported to be "The Collected Works of Ayn Rand". I have read them all at least once and some several times. "We the Living" is insightful and "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" are the most prescient, but the most disturbing is "Anthem". Anthem provides a vision of where collectivist thought and political corectness will take us. It is a truly terrifying story.
    I am a scientist and realize that scientific advancement only comes as a result of a recognition of objective reality. Objectivity is difficult because hidden assumptions cloud reason behind an insidious veil. Because of the limitations of our senses we can view reality only indirectly "as through a glass darkly". We see behavior but the nature of the underlying mechanisms remain out of our reach. Such is the task of the scientist to make the best of a difficult situation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
      Objectivity does not mean "realizing" that "because of the limitations of our senses we can view reality only indirectly 'as through a glass darkly'" with "the nature of the underlying mechanisms out of our reach" in a "a difficult situation", which is run of the mill Kantianism and the opposite of Ayn Rand's epistemology.

      The "collected works of Ayn Rand" is not limited to the four novels and does not mean the novels as interpreted by contemporary philosophy in the name of 'science'. Ayn Rand developed her philosophy to make Atlas Shrugged possible, then explained and developed it as non-fiction for over 20 years, and it isn't Kantianism, Logical Positivism, and Pragmatism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
    "how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?"
    I say I'm a "fan" of Ayn Rand. I don't mean it to sound glib. I'm not knowledgeable enough about other philosophies to be an Objectivist or any other philosophical school of thought.

    To me her books are about how beneath the trends and forces of human development, there are individual people. We say "the time was ripe for someone to discover..." The books are a reminder that individual people did the work, put up with people calling them crazy, and moved humankind forward. When we say "moved humankind forward," they generally weren't doing it for humankind but because they wanted to. When we say "he did it all for himself", it sounds like a human foible, but it's a human virtue. Who wants to be the beneficiary of charity? People are a balance of doing things to benefit themselves directly and to benefit their family, tribe, team, or country. We sometimes think it's more noble, but do something for other, but Ayn Rand says we're all others, so it's noble to do something for ourselves. It's actually way more virtuous when we act with reason to accomplish what we personally want than one side of our emotional self vs tribe instincts.

    I see all this as showing humans following reason and their own desires as beautiful in itself. I could be completely wrong because it feels like most other Ayn Rand fans get a kick out of watching one group either make another group look bad and political stratagems to make people look bad in meetings-- it's the opposite of what I took away from the books. The lights going out at the end of AS, IMHO, was intentional juxtaposition of great people following their own way with the result of second-handers' falling over one another. It was saying great people are almost unstoppable... almost, but even a worm will turn and fight if you step on it enough.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      BRAVO!
      My only disagreement: A stepped-on worm will not turn and fight. It's squashed. Dead.
      Which seemingly is where we're headed. Unless we turn and fight now.
      Try Calvera's famous quote, which is how politicians view us: "If God didn't want them sheared, He would not have made them sheep."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 1 week ago
        Dat's what me dino who always spells rite n' writes wid goot Ingles grandma likes~freedom luvin' peeps who turn and fight.
        Especially when race cards are pulled and bike locks are swung.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Jstork 2 months, 1 week ago
    I started with "Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Capitalism, and We the living." "Atlas Shrugged" was her magnum opus an I am just finishing my third visit to the book. I also have "Free Market Revolution" from Yaron Brook and Don Watkins. I have watched many of Yoron Brook's "Yaron Answers" video clips. I may not like all the answers, but can not argue with most of them. I also am a member of the Ayn Rand Institute and have taken a couple of on line courses from Leonard Peikoff. I am and pretty much live in accordance to the philosophy of rational objectivism. One of the speakers from the past the I love listening to is Milton Friedman. Excellent speaker with a wonderful candor and virtually flawless arguments.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Thank you for your comments and memories.
      I have read and re-read and re-re-read "Atlas Shrugged" -- in fact, I have lost count of how many times -- and keep a copy here at my desk for reference.
      It's a great story, filled with powerful and important ideas.
      And there are lyrical passages that are downright poetic, and that can, after all the re-readings, bring me to tears.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 2 months, 1 week ago
    I am an American, therefore, I am a Constitutionalist. Not an R, not a D, not a c or an L. I am a freeborn, informed American. As to the spelling / punctuation, I have asked before, why in the hell does the apostrophe not show up in this text format? I type it, I see it, when it posts, it just wont show up. I think its a damn communist plot.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      In the posts I see, the apostrophe is there -- although, now that you mention it, perhaps there are instances it doesn't show up and the poor poster gets blamed.
      But as I look back at my own, I see the apostrophe.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by starznbarz 2 months, 1 week ago
        In my original post above, it was used in "Wont" and now I dont see it, do you? Cant (see it?) decide if its (see it?) a text format issue, or just someone`s ( see it?) attempt to make me stop using contractions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by starznbarz 2 months, 1 week ago
          Very strange... I see it in " someone`s " but not in any of the other three words in my reply.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Solver 2 months ago
            I do notice that other people’s apostrophes in your words that aren’t working are physically different than your apostrophes in words that do work. The ones that are working are more straight up or look like raised commas where as yours are more slanted.

            What type of device are you using? What language is it set at? What language is the keyboard setting at?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by starznbarz 2 months ago
              Using my desktop win 7 pro running standard english text. What strikes me as strange, is that when I type the text, the apostrophe is visible, when I post it they not only disappear, but do not leave a space in the text where they were - except for the rare occasion that they actually show up. See my comments above for an example, "someones" shows up in the post, whereas 'cant does not. So you know, in this comment, both someones and cant show the apostrophe as I type, we`ll see if it transfers to the posted text.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
            "Strange" is right. I don't have the froggiest idea why that can happen. Maybe someone here knows more about the technology than I -- no, almost anyone knows more about it than I. I just hope someone will explain it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  sekeres 2 months ago
              Late to the party, but could it be because "someone's" is a possessive while the others are contractions? "Wont," "cant" and "its" are also words, though not the right ones in this context, and "dont," while not an English word, is a Greek root meaning "tooth," as in "orthodontist." Perhaps a hyper-formal auto-grammar-correction program combined with a large vocabulary dictionary is creating the problem?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 2 months ago
                God Bless a Classical Education!
                (Do your apostrophes show up? Mine seem always to.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  sekeres 2 months ago
                  I don't find any examples that match starznbarz's on my first page of comments, so I'm trying writing some into this post. If they won't show up, it's likely a Gulch thing; otherwise, it's specific to some commenters. This household's policy (with its ancient, slow equipment and 'net connection) is to turn off every identified "auto" program. If someone can't find a manual work-around, or it's a program/type-face/keyboard mapping problem, perhaps it's best to simply follow the Wikipedia editors' policy and "assume good intentions."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 2 months ago
                    Your apostrophes are there.
                    (On too many articles at Wikipedia I've tried to correct, the errors are put back almost before I can log off. And NOT because of "good intentions." Though I do "assume good intentions" most of the time.)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 months, 1 week ago
    All of them as far as I can tell. Plus as I wandered in the biography section of my local library, I noticed two biographies of A.R. by non affiliated writers. I don't recommend them in particular. They do give information on some obscure facts such as her childhood and her relationship with her sister the author(s) are woefully inadequate when it comes to her work, which after all, is what is most important about her life.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 2 months, 1 week ago
    I've read every word, and keep copies of all her works in my library. That includes her novels, her book-form essay collections, and every available back issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 1 week ago
    I fully agree with your post. The fact is you are a perfectionist just as Rand was. Few people these days adhere to principles and follow them in their lives.

    As far as "Conservative" and "Republican": the terms have no meaning any more in the sense they were in the times of Rand. One needs no more to do than go through members of the House or Senate and take a closer look at the GOP component: there isn't one of them who would check out according to Rand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Thank you, even though I'm not really a perfectionist -- although, come to think of it, reporters used to bitch that I, as an editor, was "picky."
      And some of the authors I now edit and publish have also so groused.
      In fact, I'm very tolerant -- except of dishonesty.
      Principle is important, and adherence to moral principle, that is, consistency, is truly vital.
      And if we care about Ayn Rand's beliefs and her legacy, we need to be honest as well as thoughtful, and we need to recognize, with her, that words do have meaning.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
    Libertarians plagerized Rand's politics and failed to integrate the remainder of her philosophy. So a Llibertarian cannot be an Objectivist.
    You can certainly use "libertarian" (small "l") in its original meaning; but it is misleading today to use it in the context of Rand's philosophy.

    Also note that Rand did not "forbid people calling themselves" Objectivists; in fact, she referred to many people as Objectivists and said that one is essentially Objectivist if he holds and understands all of her fundamental principles/beliefs (mis-defined below). She simply did not like anyone misrepresenting her and her philosophy, and preferred one to call himself a student of Obj. if he had not yet fully grasped those principles.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
      How can a person “plagiarize” another person’s politics? Either a person agrees with another’s political beliefs or one does not. Advocacy of limited government and laissez-faire capitalism was not originated by or exclusive to Rand even in her own time.

      As for Libertarians’ (capital “L”) failure to integrate the remainder of her philosophy, the Libertarian Party exists to espouse and promote a political viewpoint. It does not claim to represent a viewpoint on other aspects of philosophy, nor should it be expected to – that’s not its purpose. (And if an Objectivist cannot be a member of the Libertarian Party, the same certainly holds true regarding any other political party.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
        They took her politics and twisted it to be something different. You have too narrow a view of her principles; e.g. her political principles were tied to her metaphysics/epistemology/ethics, the total of which is unique.

        You may not know of the origin of Libertarianism: the movement began with Objectivists who could not agree with her principles except for some political fundamentals.

        Of course an Objectivist can be a member of a political party - that's necessary to vote. He just can't hold Libertarian principles (such as they are).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
          Re: the movement began with Objectivists who could not agree with her principles except for some political fundamentals.

          No it didn’t. According to a contemporary libertarian publication (SIL News), the creators of the Libertarian Party were a mix of former Republicans, advocates of Objectivism, Misesians, and fans of Robert Heinlein. A minority were anarchists. What united them was support for economic and personal liberty, and the desire to participate in the political process through a party that would promote these values. I joined the LP shortly after its formation in early 1972, knew many of its founders personally, and can vouch for the wide mix of ideological backgrounds of its early members.

          The purpose of a political party is to promote a political agenda, not an entire philosophy. And no, it is not necessary to be a member of a political party in order to vote.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
            It was primarily Obj.ists or "students of...".
            I was there, heard them speak before and during the process of forming a party. And at the beginning, it was not a minority who were anarchists; that's where they started deviating from Obj.ism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
              There is a certain appeal to anarchism, When confronted by collectivism for year upon year.

              Living alone on a ranch with only physical reality to deal with, you tend not to need a philosophy of objectivism

              Objectivist principles are really rules to allow people to live in harmony together.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                Objectivism is a philosophy for an individual to live in all aspects of his own thinking and choices. It's purpose and necessity are individual, not social. It begins with rationality as the primary virtue, not social considerations. The politics is a consequence.

                From Galt's speech:

                "You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

                "If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."

                From her notes before Atlas Shrugged:

                "[Regarding social relations:] Before you come to 'any principle as a guide in his relations to other men,' cover the point of how the morality of reason applies to man alone even to a man on a desert island. The first commandment is to exercise his reason. Morality is not social (and don't forget the evils that come from thinking that it is). Only after you have established this, can you come to morality in relation to other men. " -- from Notes on the written part of
                The "Moral Basis of Individualism" Introduction, June 1945

                "... man's moral code has to apply primarily to his own private conduct in relation to himself and his life—and that only on the basis of the right code toward himself will he or can he observe any sort of moral code toward others. Conventionally, it is thought that a man on a desert island needs no moral code. That is where he would need it the most. The proper code, of course, is: rational control of himself and his actions, a rational view of reality (identifying facts for what they are, to the best of his knowledge and capacity, being true to truth), the rational choice of his purpose and the action to achieve it." -- October 1949
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Thanks for the quotes from Rand. I was being a bit too pragmatic in saying that on a desert island one doesnt need objectivist principles. What I was responding to is that on that desert island rationality would be required for survival- there would be no other alternatives like relying on other people or some 'god" invention. Reality would just be in your face 100% all the time.

                  That said, it would be POSSIBLE for a person to be irrational and ignore reality. So you are right.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                    It also emphasizes Ayn Rand's distinctive approach that fundamentally contrasts her from the vaguely classified "libertarians" who, whatever superficial or implicit philosophies they hold, attempt to advocate a (usually contradictory) political position without regard to the necessity of both basing politics on fundamentals and achieving popular acceptance of explicit principles on which politics depends.

                    In her "Brief Summary" in 1971 she began be quoting her position as stated in 1962:

                    "Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles - specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism - as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context.

                    "Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics - on a theory of man's nature and of man's relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as 'conservatism.' Objectivists are not 'conservatives.' We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish."

                    Her "Brief Summary" continued:

                    "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

                    "This - the supremacy of reason - was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. (For a definition of reason, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.) Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics. The hierarchical structure cannot be reversed, nor can any of its levels hold without the fundamental one—as those who have tried are beginning to discover."

                    "... Politics is the last link in the chain—the last, not the first, result of a country's intellectual trends.

                    "In this connection and for the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement..."

                    She rejected both the libertarian movement (including anarchists claiming to be following her philosophy), and the conservative movement, many times on fundamental grounds, both in their content and in their emphasis on a-philosophical politics. Her political philosophy was not based on leaping in with a "premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life", and her emphasis on reason did not mean political "reasons" for freedom. "Objectivism" is not "based on the non-aggression principle of honoring our neighbors’ choice (not initiating physical force, fraud or theft) and making things right with our victims if we don’t." The "premise" and the essence was her metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, not politics at all.

                    It is true that a-philosophical conservatives (together with some a-philosophical 'libertarians') dominate this forum with endless repetition in largely superficial political fads or would-be fads as if they had not read Ayn Rand. But the answer is not to characterize Ayn Rand as the "libertarian" false alternative to conservatives.

                    Ayn Rand made it very clear why "libertarian" does not characterize her position. The claim that "only [a] very misinformed cultist can continue to deny that 'libertarian' is the correct term" is flatly false -- and ironic coming from someone who claims to "be much more careful about how we represent her".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 2 months ago
                      I can see why objectivism is a tough sell to people. This is pretty complicated stuff, and most people are just too busy staying alive day to day to understand what she says.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                        Ayn Rand's ideas are no more difficult to understand than any other philosophy. She was a clear writer who is much easier to understand than most, including everything from Kant to religious mysticism.

                        But her basic ideas are radically different than most of what has been promoted for thousands of years. They challenge what most people have come to believe out of habit because they have heard it so many times from an early age and absorb it uncritically, not knowing where it came from or its full implications.

                        Part of what they accept is a hopelessness of understanding at all, and they are not accustomed to thinking in abstract concepts beyond an emotional level. Any kind of true thinking with mental focus requires effort, but at least some do that in their professional lives. People either want to question and understand or they don't. Even on this forum we see people enthusiastically attracted to Atlas Shrugged in some way, but associate it with whatever else they have absorbed. They don't think about what Ayn Rand was saying beyond their emotional reactions and don't try to understand the philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 2 months ago
                          You answer yourself: Ayn Rand's philosophy IS difficult to understand exactly because it is "radically different" from what has been taught and been more widely accepted.
                          As she herself said, her ideas were flying in the face of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
                          I ask, often, how do you explain water to a fish?
                          Much harder, how do you explain the stars to a fish?
                          Rand was trying the latter, to show humans greatness, things and ideas beyond the mundane.
                          Probably most people cannot because they will not accept a hard reality, as opposed to mysticism and superstition.
                          It's a terrible cliche, but apparently also a truism: It's important to go along in order to get along.
                          Being willing to stand out, to be different, to, for example, study and understand the ideas of Ayn Rand in many ways make us different and, thus, perceived as a threat.
                          Or at least as something making others uncomfortable.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                            What does "you answer yourself" mean? Being different does not in itself mean harder for an individual to understand. Ayn Rand was a very clear writer and speaker. It is harder to penetrate the greater numbers of people who resist and misrepresent, but first people have to be willing to focus and think with a desire to understand.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                      Once again we see clowns 'down voting' Ayn Rand on an Ayn Rand forum, this time on a thread wondering how many people here have even read Ayn Rand and calling for a more careful representation of her ideas.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                Very interesting.
                That collectivism you refer to so saturates our society and culture, I used to have to explain to people that Ayn Rand was not an anarchist, why the term was incorrect.
                In the Bible is a verse saying something like, Anyone who would do harm to children might as well tie a millstone around his neck and throw himself into the sea.
                I apply that to the people running the government school systems.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
                  I think it be refreshing to just live away from collectivists for awhile. I am pretty tired of the entitlement culture that has gripped at least half the country
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
                No appeal to anarchism - we need govt. for individual protection.
                2. There should remain many reasons to follow Obj. on a ranch.
                3. "Rules"/principles are also for individual success.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
                  You need agreement on individual rights first and foremost before a govt. look at wat we have now !!

                  My point is that on a ranch, there is little chance to survive if one opposes reality. You just have no choice. Objectivist principles are not really needed
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
              tdechaine, have you ever heard of a book titled "It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand"?
              Despite blocking efforts by National Review and the slimy New York Times, millions of people, of all ages, became acquainted with the ideas and philosophy of freedom by reading Ayn Rand.
              No rational and honest person has ever denied or disputed that fact.
              BUT, as your cultist worship seems to prevent your acknowledging, Rand was not a "madman who heard voices in the air." She knew that ideas of freedom have been around for many centuries, and to a very large extent -- as she commented on herself frequently -- the founders of these United States believed in and acknowledged that human beings ought to be free.
              Have you ever heard of Leonard Read, or Albert Jay Nock, or Frank Chodorov? How about Lysander Spooner? Or Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson?
              Or, and this is actually funny, though I bet you won't get the joke, Andrew Galambos?
              Galambos tried to claim Rand stole his ideas!
              By the way, a few years ago, somebody did try to start an Objectivist Party. It died very quickly.
              In the libertarian movement of today, Rand's influence is less. I don't know why. Perhaps it's because of cultists.
              But some new libertarians do find their initial influences elsewhere.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
                For the most part, this is garbled rhetoric that does not pertain to anything I said - unless you want to show something specific.

                Sure Rand's influence in the Lib. party is less: because they have developed an inconsistent set of beliefs over time that don't require Rand knowledge.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 2 months, 1 week ago
    Ayn Rand was not a "libertarian" and your post is embarrassment to her. A term used to denote a person must be fundamental in identifying that persons essential defining characteristic Your use of libertarian is not definitional. Its like calling Aristotle a writer. Rand and her philosophy are about reason and the defining characteristic of a person of full mental capacity to reason is what it is to be an Objectivist. She defined the values and skills a person must master if they are to be fully rational including being in full focus. If you had actually understood her writings, if you read them, you would know that .to be an Objectivist is a mark of the highest intellectual achievement and is a medal of honor to anyone who earns it and Miss Rand did. To call her a libertarian is a mark of the mental muddle libertarians are in. Libertarians are a mental patchwork Objectivists are intellectually consistent to the extent they understand and integrate the philosophy. It is hard to be one as one must take command of one's mind in full focus and validate one's values in reality. Enjoy your muddle.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
      Re: ” A term used to denote a person must be fundamental in identifying that persons essential defining characteristic Your use of libertarian is not definitional.”

      He never claimed it was. “Denote” and “define” are entirely different words with entirely different meanings. Dictionary.com defines “denote” as “to be a mark or sign of; indicate”. Thesaurus.com lists as synonyms “designate” and “mean”. None of these have anything to do with identifying a person’s “essential defining characteristic”. In today's political/economic environment, the word "libertarian" is used in everyday discourse to denote someone who is a consistent advocate of a free market. If you have a better word in common use to describe Ayn Rand's position on the political/economic spectrum, I would like to hear it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by philosophercat 2 months, 1 week ago
        CBJ
        re-read this "...despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian." She was not an advocate of anything libertarian because an advocate of reason she understood that Liberty cannot be established without a proper moral system and a proper moral system can only be found by agents with free will by reason. Substituting libertarian for reason and egoism and capitalism only shows how you have abandoned them. . Rand showed that to define a term you have to do it by essentials. You will benefit from re-reading OPAR.
        The philosophical Cat
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
          Re: ”Substituting libertarian for reason and egoism and capitalism only shows how you have abandoned them.” There is no substitution involved. Libertarianism is an expression of certain individuals’ political philosophy and viewpoint. It neither says nor implies anything about the remainder of their philosophical views.

          Again, if you have a better word in common use than “libertarian” to describe Ayn Rand's position on the political/economic spectrum, I would like to hear it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
            Rand taught me to think for myself, so I don’t call myself an objectivist or anything else actually. But I would fit right into living at a gulch
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Snezzy 2 months, 1 week ago
    Ayn Rand's objection to being called a libertarian came from her refusal to be defined by others. She carefully avoided being swept aside as "Ohhh, one of THOSE people."

    She rejected being "a Russian" or "a Jew" and instead was an American and an individualist.

    Why do some people want her to be a libertarian? Is it to secure her blessing, to have some of her good qualities rub off on them? She seemed to regard sycophants as worse than her declared enemies.

    Call her a libertarian if you want, but watch me lift one eyebrow as I wonder what you are trying to accomplish.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Snezzy, she often remarked on her Jewish heritage.
      And she often stressed her Russian heritage, though in the context of what horrors she had already seen and wanted us to avoid.
      Check your premises.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
      In today's political/economic environment, the word "libertarian" is used in everyday discourse to denote someone who is a consistent advocate of a free market. If you have a better word in common use to describe Ayn Rand's position on the political/economic spectrum, I would like to hear it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
      Her objective also came from the ignorance of comparing Lib. with Obj.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Snezzy 2 months, 1 week ago
        Indeed. She became rather tired of explaining herself to people who had not read her books and who tried to "package" her Objectivism as being some other thing that they thought they knew.

        The friend who introduced me to Objectivism took a similar attitude towards my second-hander approach to Rand's ideas. I'd annoy him with straw-man questions, and he eventually said, "I'm not answering you any longer. If you want to know, read Rand's books."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          Sort of like your parents telling you to quit pestering them with questions and "look it up."
          And sort of like why I would not give away a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" though I might sell it for a quarter: The person getting it for free might well just set it down and never bother.
          But the person paying, even a quarter, then has something invested in actually learning.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree

    I also think that using reason to combat the leftists emotional arguments doesn’t work. They haven’t gotten to where they are using reason. And we won’t change their position with reason

    I think the civilization needs to collapse before people will listen to galt

    Maybe Venezuela is ready for galt now that they don’t have food
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
    Re: I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."

    Some context is required here. Nathaniel Branden wrote: “In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy – it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists.’ But at present, when the name is so intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me, it is not. At present, a person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism.” -The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1965.

    It’s now 53 years later, and all of the above conditions appear to have been met. It’s time to retire the phrase “student of Objectivism” when describing one’s philosophical beliefs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Snezzy 2 months, 1 week ago
      Still a good phrase. Some of us are hangers-on, some of us friendly fans, some vaguely aware. The serious are students of Objectivism or Objectivists, and in general they know which term they should claim, although they may well disagree with others about the matter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tdechaine 2 months, 1 week ago
      The term is still appropriate when one does not sufficiently understand and fully accept her principles. Further, Branden is not Rand and is not in a position to restrict the use of "Objectivist".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo