Anybody here ever read Ayn Rand's works?
Posted by deleted 6 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
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?
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?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
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
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.
2. There should remain many reasons to follow Obj. on a ranch.
3. "Rules"/principles are also for individual success.
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.)
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.
But as I look back at my own, I see the apostrophe.
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...