Lululemon?...

Ain't they the ones that got caught lying about magic seaweed in their pants
?

Heh!

"anyone advocating greater personal liberty"... Waalll now, every actual individualist I ever met was too busy doing what they felt like doing to belong to any "movement" or label. Folks like Rand generally got run over by cork boots if they took to pontificating in front of said individuals.

What would the pigeons do

without all the pigeon holes?

Who is Howard Roark?

Is there an architect or an artist that doesn't identify with Howard Roark?

Only if the Ministry of Utilitarian Infrastructure has an architect on staff.

Individualism is the blindingly bright winner that shines through from the basic root of the human experience and is glaringly obvious worldwide. Nothing weird about that.

Howard Beale, John Galt and Howard Roark save us from dictatorial tyranny by insisting on their own creations and ideas, as do any great artist that strikes new ground, including greats like George Carlin, Jimi Hendrix or Edith Piaf.

Irrelavant...

The beauty of "Atlas Shrugged" is that it is so loose that it can be applied to almost any situation, and almost every movement. It's no wonder that just about every cause has picked it up as their own.

Its parallels to anti Soviet-ism are obvious, but Ayn Rand had no true understanding of free markets and capitalism; the groups that love to fall in line with her writings today.

Who is John Galt? John Galt was the leader of a union that first organized, and then withdrew it's services for ideological reasons.

I'll bet that you never saw that one coming.

Kinked

The sado-masochist elements of Rands writing seems to fly over the heads of the libertarian prudes. Or they very quietly enjoy it.

Atlas Shrugged was a rip off of Tolstoys' War & Peace.

All the 'individualists' ...

had better come to terms with the fact that nobody is an island. The vast majority of us like to think we earned what we have acquired. Truth be told, our own efforts pale in comparison to the effects of opportunity (or lack thereof) or support (or lack thereof) we receive by luck of the draw.

We are all opportunists and we are all complicit in the crimes against others less fortunate than ourselves. How much better would this world be if everyone helped just one other individual less fortunate than themselves without some form of personal gain attached?

Years ago I worked with a guy

Years ago I worked with a guy who basically believed in the Ayn Rand bullshit. You should have seen his reaction when I said I was going to buy his next door property and put a sawmill on it and to hell with anybody objecting cuz it's "my right to make a living".

George Carlin eh?

"One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is "Libertarian." People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable, and to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous. Actually, it's just one more bullshit political philosophy." (p. 261 Napalm and Silly Putty)

I personally like Monbiot's summary:

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/03/05/a-manifesto-for-psychopaths/

The main object of

The main object of "individualism" is the enslavement and robbing of others individuals.

The most misused word after "freedom", promised by the communists, nazis, all religions and ideologies, is "individualism", while delivering forced submission to a few rulers.

The best example is now communist China where all the "individualists" congregate, working on how to steal the most from the most. In the name of "freedom" and "individualism", of course.

Can't you, the "conservative" faithful., come up with a less shopworn and silly expression to sell slavery ?

The collectivization of agriculture and the world's economic system into the hands of a criminal "individualist" sector is the prime example of the fraud, because the world's family farmers are the original and best examples of individualism the present system is built to wipe out to force everybody into cities and under the control of the "individualists" slave drivers to "raise the GDP".

There was one year, when 3,000 Indian farmers committed suicide, when forced off their lands, as have been millions of others all over the world, including here in BC, by the mega, agribiz corporations, promoting "individualism" into city slums.

Ed Deak.

Ed Deak.

Finally a Philosophy psychopaths can call their own

I mean really after painfully making my way through Atlas Shrugged it dawned on me that what Rand was actually advocating was a society filled with atomistic psychopaths who go about exploiting each other in the name of personal gain. Look up the description of makes a psychopath and read up on Rands objectivism, it fits like a glove.

Probably one of the worse Philosopical texts Ive ever read and a clear rip off of Neitzsche.

My copy of Atlas Shrugged was used as linIng for my birds cage so all is not lost.

An ideology of self-Justification

Libertarianism/Randism is simply an elaborate construction that allows people who were born on third base to believe that they hit a triple.

In the U.S. it will interesting to see whether the tensions between non-religious libertarians and the fundamentalist racists in the Tea Party break out into open conflict. Contradictions galore.

An observation.

After reading the article and then the first post, from Kreditan no less, which tells Crawford to be "open-minded - I had to laugh. Good article Crawford!

:)

"Libertarianism/Randism is simply an elaborate construction that allows people who were born on third base to believe that they hit a triple. "

that's a keeper

Do your homework

If you had, you'd know she described such a Utopia in AS.

Spandex

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich The following is a quote from Elizabeth Warren, the banker who saw the 2008 collapse coming and the reasons behind it. Perhaps economic sociopaths like Chip and Gwyn Morgan and others should heed this. But they won't.
Besides, Spandex is not a right.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Brilliant Essay Mr. Killian!

A brilliant piece of journalism. There have been many excellent articles debunking the Ayn Rand gobbledegook, but never with as much clarity, precision and contemporary content as Mr. Killian's article above.

Indeed, the "greed industry" is booming. As it was in the 1850s when Karl Marx expressed the despair of millions of workers when he wrote Das Kapital in London, England.

Rampant greed, based on selfishness and self-centredness (which BTW is NOT a logical principle as has been demonstrated many times before) is back with a vengeance. Killian describes a potential future thus:

"The masters of a Randian society would rule a wasteland of clear cuts, poisoned streams, and empty seas, except for those patches they personally owned and protected."

Sadly, this sounds like Stephen Harper's Canada, whom we all must obey.

Or must we?

Great coverage as always.

We're still here and our influence is growing.

I'm one of those young people who were attracted to Ayn Rand's philosophy in college in the 1960s (See my "Letter from a reader" in her October 1966 issue of "The Objectivist").

Unlike many who were part of the intellectual leftist mainstream of that and the present era, I actually read what she had to say and endeavored to actually understand her philosophy.

Today, that young crowd of enthusiasts are professors (like myself), doctors, lawyers, artists and businessmen who, towards the ends of our lives are encouraged to see the numbers of her young enthusiasts increasing exponentially.

This gives me hope that our civilization will not collapse under the weight of the leftist dogma which aims to return us to the primordial chains of collectivism.

Fortunately for those of us fighting for the future we have encountered no intellectual opposition, only sneers. The dregs of the old intelligentsia have considered Ayn Rand to be a joke. Historically, the joke is on them.

The Ultimate Hypocrit

She was a narcissistic, selfish old bird and the ironic things was that she lived on social security for some of the last few years of her life. But then again a lot of her free enterprise followers are not averse to sticking their hands into the public trough when they get the chance. I guess she meant you should take from wherever you can get. What a lovely world it would be if we all followed her teachings, eh?

re John Bales

"Historically, the joke is on them"

This line is true, though not in the way it was intended. 2008 was the "punchline" of the joke, when libertarian philosophy reached it's inevitable result with the worst economic crash since that last time libertarian phiolosphy reigned, the late 1920's. The laughter of today's John Galts has continued as they got the poor plebeians to bail them out and run up huge debt (with money borrowed from the "John Galts"). The joke is indeed on us.

Our civilization is collapsing under the weight of rightist dogma that aims to return us to a primordial, Hobbesian, state of nature.

The indoctrinated...

Will always believe what they have been told to believe but in the real world it is not beliefs that count. I am so glad I am not in the Professors class. Do you think he teaches economic courses like the The Greed Opportunities in Global Capitalism?
Mr. Greenspan was a huge fan of Ayn Rand and invited her to his swearing in ceremony when he was made head of the Federal Reserve. We know where his decisions took the world and in his response to a congressional inquiry he said he had failed for decades to see the errors in his thinking. End of story: let's not follow the southern bullies over the cliff.
Alberta should be referred to as Texas North, the most un-Canadian province.

John

Leftist dogma? Like what? Several million years of social evolution destroyes Rands philosophy.

But let me guess you don't believe in evolution.

The so called

The so called "conservative/capitalists" are the worst collectivizers, as we can see it all around us, something even brainwashed professors should be able to comprehend.

There are 15 million slave labour kids in India, in the name of "free enterprise" and "individualism", of course. Nobody knows how many millions in other communist/capitalist, collectivizer countries ?

How about it prof ? Should we sign "free trade" rackets with them all, to enjoy the benefits of the "individualism" of slave labourers ?

How about our highways, where everybody is free to travel anywhere, provided they comply with strict laws, enforced by an independent authority.

Isn't this the prime example of the loss of "individualism", and creeping socialism ?

What is the difference between the highways and any other economic/human activities ?

How can we preserve our "individualism" without having them protected by enforced, strict laws ?

Let's hear the educated opinion ?

Ed Deak.

I'll take a fictional witch over a real one any day:

"Sixteen!"
"You've counted sixteen?" said Oats eventually.
"No, but it is as good an answer as any you'll get. And that's what you holy men discuss is it?"
"Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin, for example."
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?"
"It is not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No it ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes-"
"But they Starts with thinking about people as things…"

Write about what you know...

I suggest that the author of this article should have at least read one of Rand's books before writing this article. Your's and Weiss' lack of even a rudimentary undertanding of Rand's philosophy was embarrassing to me.

Psychopaths

Psychopaths have always been attracted to anything that provides a cloak for their destructive greed & selfishness. Ayn Rand is just the latest intellectual to offer a new smokescreen.
Have you ever noticed how unhappy these psychopaths are? Rarely do you ever find them in a stable, loving relationship; their families are a mess & who could ever trust one to be your friend.
This is a demonstrably failed approach to the world - conservatives should flee at top-speed from anyone who admits to liking Ayn Rand.

Rand took social assistance:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

Psychopaths are not clever

Psychopaths are not clever, only hungry, endlessly pleased with their ability to satisfy their appetites without regard for others. Except reaching greedily for the plate has never been the best way to serve the meat around. It's messy and inefficient. There is, contrary to Ayn Rand, very little virtue in raw, uncontrolled selfishness.

As the numbers show, there is no trickle-down. It's all trickle up. And when the rich get too rich, the poor too poor and the middle class too weak, the system collapses. Always.

"John W. Bales We're still

"John W. Bales
We're still here and our influence is growing."

Well I read your article carefully and here's my response.

I noticed that no evidence is given to support your initial claim, quoted above, anywhere in your post. Not a good start.

Evidence free claims are not arguments.

The rest of your post is also full of evidence free claims along with name calling. Yeah, sure, that will convince everybody.

Re: Rand Took Social Assistance

Always great to promote inidivudalism when you have a fallback position.......
But I think Thomas Hobbes said it best, with his "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

Those who believe in trickle

Those who believe in trickle down will be trickled on.

Ed Deak.

Hakuin: "I'll take a fictional witch over a real one any day"

Thank you Hakuin.

Brilliant reference to the works of Terry Pretchett, who perfectly captures the irony and obscurity of ideologies like that of Ayn Rand. Her sophomoric reasoning is found in many similar diatribes, except hers was eagerly adopted by the current ruling class. Obviously, there was nothing better off the shelf.

So she received the "accolade".

Like BC's Fraser Institute which was 'launched' in the 1970's, it is a persistent pattern of the ruling 1% to hijack public concepts to promote a very long history of class structure.

Great coverage!

Er...why is it "weird"? No

Er...why is it "weird"?

No more weird than our current system, in which "stealing is wrong except by majority vote"...

The nature of psychopathy

Psychopathy is a condition defined by absences.

People either are born so, a sort of birth defect or developmental disability, or else they achieve it through deep trauma. What is absent in them is the ability to believe in the parts of human experience they cannot themselves share. They can't love, except themselves. They can't see others as truly human, like themselves, and believe others are lying when they show love for each other but can't quite understand why. No compassion, no empathy, no relationships, no sense of community. And no way to understand except just by rote.

The intelligent ones come to fear the consequences of their disorder. The population of prisons is very high in psychopaths and sociopaths.

They seek power and wealth to protect them from what they fear. They have sought it by the manipulation of the democratic process. They have sought high office in government and in corporate, and been very successful because they are utterly amoral and ruthless. If thousands die or come into slavery to give them some trivial advantage, so what? They know we never jail the rich and powerful.

They have organized into a sort of mutual aid society. When a test for psychopaths was developer, bankers soon adopted it as a hiring aid, to find other psychopaths to protect their own positions.

This woman and her philosophy have made a perfect screen for them. They use her to justify and legitimize their disease.

Until we begin to call this evil by it's right name, and expose its lies, we are in danger from these monsters. Our homes and children are not safe in the hands of the people who now control our nation and its finances.

Objectivism

After giving it a lot of thought last night I have come to the conclusion that objectivism is something to use if you are a psychopath looking to justify your selfish actions with what looks like a real valid philosopy. Well it is a real valid philosophy but it is a philosophy for psychopaths.

Oh, yes, perhaps we should

Oh, yes, perhaps we should treat those super rich folks with the same kind of compassion Rand says we should feel for everyone, which is none, and take all they've got.Tthen see how they'd like her philosophy. They'd all go on social security, wouldn't they?

yeah Annie, that's the nub of it

Unless you are rich enough to afford an entire private army to defend your pile, you could never keep it in a society without laws for the weak.... unless THAT is what we already have....

I personally think our so-called cops are private security guards for the rich already.

Nudism and Rand

An aquaintance went through a phase where he was reading Ann Rand and likened Wreck Beach as a randian community. Some of my friends were regular fixtures on the beach for a long time. I went down there for a few times and just watched various things go on. Before the GVRD took over the beach it was still relatively clean and well managed. It was an open market for drugs, beer, all sorts of food, clothing, swag even the first cellphones were availabe for a small fee, pretty much anything could be had. Even though there wasn't a police or GVRD presence back in those days, there was a sense that issues would be dealt with by some of the locals. There were people who even had medical training if someone went overboard. The Wreck Beach Preservation Society was (is?) a tight knit group that kept an eye on all aspects of the Beach. I wouldnt call them a government but that was the closest thing to it. For all long time there was equilibrium and harmony. Of course all good things come to an end. In the case of Wreck Beach it was a murder. A police presence moved in and the GVRD took over the park. Too bad, it would have been interesting to see where this randian or anarchistic experiment would go.
I wonder if anyone has rigorously studied 'beaches'. English Bay used to have a unique flavour. Maybe thetyee could write an article. Not exactly sure what Rand and nudism have in common, Individualism and freedom maybe?

Rights

Spandex is not a right.

Rand the other side of the extreme

Her writings never were a joke.

However for someone whose ideas and theories championed a distorted form of libertarian individualism, she sure found acceptable the creation of uncritical followers and even a cult more publicly acceptable than L. Ron Hubbard's.

But Rand herself had trouble with free thinkers as she expelled many from her inner circle, which she described ironically her "collective", for thinking differently from herself.

From the journal "Anarchy" issue 35:

"Outwardly, this collective professed egoism and individuality. They were to be the vanguard of an intellectual renaissance. The price of admission to this group, however, was slavish conformity
of one's life and professed philosophy to Ayn Rand's whims and eccentricities. For example, she did not like men who wore facial hair or listened to Mozart, and if you didn't give them up you were unfit for Rand's inner circle."

But such is life for those closely bonded to aristocracy as she and her family were in Russia prior to the revolution.

She couldn't grasp how companies could be run by employees nor the reason for land reform and I wonder how she would perceive the new world order of globalization and large multi-national companies.

She must have lived a very sheltered life far away from the masses, other races and societies other than the one she came from in White Russia. She describe the US in an article in the New Intellectual as "a superlative material achievement in the midst of an untouched wilderness, against the resistance of savage tribes." To Rand many were savages including Mozart.

Perhaps the Tea Party reflects much of Rand's ideas including the unquestionable allegiance to the wealthy and aristocracy no matter what suffering they create with their "free egos and individualism".

pwlg

In other words, might is right.

Give me superhero altruism anyday

Ayn Rand drove Steve Ditko mad and drove Neil Peart to write some truly pretentious rock lyrics. Which is too bad, because both men were far more talented individuals than she who deserved to be left in peace.
Now Steinbeck, that's a writer.

John Galt and Howard Roark

Howard Beale, John Galt and Howard Roark are nonsense figures - fictional caricatures and nothing more.

Why anyone would read Ayn Rand's utterly forgettable prose based upon the delusion that the United States is divided into two classes - a hard-working productive elite, and indolent masses leeching off their labor by means of confiscatory taxes and transfer programs.

In fact, the US is a gangster state whose initial wealth and advantage to the few came as a direct consequence of the simple fact that, for the first couple of hundred years of its existence (as colony and nation), it treated a large minority of its citizens as property.

The whole program is utter garbage and anyone who accepts its childish teachings is little better than Rand herself. Her philosophy is simply Marxism turned on its head - only goofier. She and her Canadian disciple (Nathan Blumenthal - whom she re-named Nathaniel Branden) created a cult of personality which would have been worthy of Stalin...

In my view a much better book about the witch is Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right
By Jennifer Burns

objectivism not objective

The thing about Objectivism is that it is subjective and not objective. Rand bases her philosophy on the idea of private property as a basis for individual survival and flourishing.
But private property presupposes social norms and collective agreements. Plus what I can do with my property depends on the customs and history of place, region and country.

People who lose their property to a fire, tsunami, flood, or hurricane are much better off with good neighbours and healthy communities to help rebuild or relocate than they are with money and house insurance.
Every libertarian or objectivist I know is a global warming denier. How's that for being subjective. The reason is, they can't handle the truth, that the free market is driving us over a cliff, leading to the destruction of vital eco-systems and the economic enslavement of millions.
Objectivists consider Rachel Carson to be evil. I am not making this up. By warning of the dangers of DDT she single-handedly crippled the progress of the pesticide industry to eliminate malaria and produce enough food for everyone. Apparently. There is an eerie similarity between Christian Dominionists and Atheistic Objectivists in their glorification of man's dominion over nature and a total lack of objective knowledge about the importance of eco-system services and human cooperation in ensuring our continued survival.

Not her again

I too experienced rand and in the 60s and generally agree with the his remembrances of her, books and philosophy , Fascism in a skirt was the joke. But when he gets current we diverge I was surprized to see that she has sold some many books lately , but I'm sure his his stats are accurate. If using the the amazing amount of discussion on American political web sites is is any evidence. Where his criticism fails is in the fact that Rand was an Idealist and the people employing her today , in a form of grave robbing , just as the mormon church baptizes famous dead people into the faith, are all materialists. This leads to all sorts of logical and actual errors in interpreting her beliefs . She was Russian ,Jewish, Atheistic , Feministic , Anti war , anti government, pro-choice . she must be spinning in her grave . The left is currently employing her corpse as a boogeyman ,the right as an Emminence Grise. in the current politicsal struggles, both are wrong , embarrassingly so. This is a straight up diversion tactic nothing more.

John w bales

Your post makes sense, only the most arrogant amongst us could by into Ms. Rands deeply flawed philosophy . like religion,Ojectivism is something most of us grow out of. The balance between taking care of your self and taking care of others, is the only issue here.

Battle of the Billionaires

"After all, instead of letting ordinary taxpayers foot the bill for an army, the rich would have to pay for their own private mercenaries. The mercenaries would be as reliable as the Praetorian Guard, which routinely murdered Roman emperors who didn't pay them enough. The billionaires would have to battle one another like so many Somali clans, just to survive."

We can only hope...

An excellent article, Crawford Kilian - one of your best.

Nothing but Smears Against Rand (Part 1)

I read the entire article, and have yet to find one legitimate criticism of Objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy and consists of five branches:
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Aesthetics.

Metaphysics and epistemology are the basis of her entire ethical and political theory. Yet, I hear no arguments against her metaphysics. Does anyone one this site even care why she called it "Objectivism?" It refers to the axioms of existence. Existence exists, consciousness exists, and identity exists. Do any of these "enlightened" commenters even mention anything about her epistemology? No, they probably have never heard of the word in their lives, although they'll probably do a quick Google search after this post. Rand is not primarily an advocate of selfishness, but an advocate of Reason. Why do none of her detractors bother to tackle her epistemology? Her epistemology is the basis of everything else she held philosophically.

The article mentions little about the philosophy itself, only people who, at various times, were associated with Ayn Rand.
It doesn't mention the metaphysical axioms, the nature of concepts, or even metaethics.

Nothing but Smears Against Ayn Rand (Part 2)

The first paragraph of this article concludes with the assumption that promoting selfishness is a virtue and that condemning altruism as vice is a self-evident joke. I will simply respond by saying there is nothing self-evident about morality. To begin with, I'd like to ask Kilian, what is morality? What does it consist of? And most importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW what morality is? Only epistemology (the theory of knowledge) can answer such questions about the nature of knowledge. Ultimately, this is simply a logical fallacy: Which one, you ask? Argument from Intimidation.

"The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”--Ayn Rand.

Nothing but Smears Against Ayn Rand (Part 3)

Next item

Alan Greenspan was NOT an Objectivist, being an admirer and subscribing to a particular philosophic system is completely separate. All Objectivists hold, I included, that the proper function of the government is the protection of individual rights and the eradication of physical force from all human interactions, which means specifically: Police, Military and Law Courts. No more, no less.

The author of this article mentions that there are several contradictions in Objectivism, yet doesn't cite any examples. He only cites the actions of persons variously associated with Rand as contradictory to the philosophy. Associations are not a philosophy. If you want to do a proper critical treatment of Objectivism, start at the beginning of the philosophy: Metaphysics and Epistemology. I know those are big words, but you can try.

Finally, for commenters on here that charge her with hypocrisy for taking SS benefits while denouncing it her whole life, let me remind you that that was not other people's money, it was HER money. She had no choice but to pay into Social Security. I myself am thoroughly opposed to the income tax. Yet I pay it, does that make me a hypocrite? No, I face no other alternative, except jail. I have paid, unwillingly MY money into SS and intend to get every last penny out of it that I can. One other point on this: Since Rand advocated against sacrifice, it WOULD have contradicted her own ethics if she refused her SS payments. That would've been a double sacrifice.

To Conclude: I see nothing in this article that speaks to the philosophy of Objectivism itself, only that it promotes greed and selfishness, which according to the author is self-evident joke, implying that morality is something self-evident. I see only attacks on people who were associated with Ayn Rand at different periods of her life, which amounts to guilt by association. Finally, to the author of this article, and to the commenters who seem to be opposed to greed let me ask you this? How much is too much? What dollar amount is it that you go from having “enough” to “too much?” $1,000,000? $2,000,000? What is the proper amount, and how do you know that the right amount is? I don't anticipate any arguemnts, only smears.

Sorry Brian (not)

Real philosophers covered all that before, better and more thorougly. Filing off the serial numbers doesn't make the original thought hers. And the rearrangement is self evidently lame since nothing of note has ever come of it.

Humanity is about cooperation, it's all that lasts. Rand is already forgotten.

Rand

Rand's self-stated purpose in life was 'the projection of an ideal man...'

In fact, her turgid prose and her so called 'philosophy' was a contest between that ideal and the simple (and thankfully irrefutable truth) that the idea of a superman is fundamentally undemocratic and anti-human. The same contradiction drove Nietzsche mad. In Rand's case it led her to create a cult where all decisions - including personal and intimate ones - were meant to be hers. Self-styled morality is no morality at all.

The only curious thing about Rand's popularity in America arises out of the contradiction inherent in a country which sees itself as a functioning democracy at the same time that it practices a level of functional plutocracy which is the antithesis of real democracy.

One cannot worship at the alter of the sovereign individual and also be a democrat. Rand's delusional idea that the United States is divided into two classes:the hard-working productive elite, and the lazy masses who sponge off their labour by means of taxes and transfer programs is utter nonsense.

In fact, exactly the opposite is true - as shown precisely and in living colour by the ongoing collapse of the financial house of cards created and promoted under the Randian guidance of Alan Greenspan.

Without the ordinary working classes, the average civil servant and the common everyday labourer, the boring bureaucrat and file clerk, the secretary and the farmer, Rand and her superman would, quite simply, starve.

The truth is: all work has dignity, all people have the spark of greatness within them.

Sorry Hakuin

"Rand is already forgotten." Not according to the author of this article and not according to you since you felt it necessary to comment on an article about her. Yes cooperation is necessary, but cooperation is not collectivism nor is it self-sacrifice. I cooperate with UPS in that they offer me a service that I value and pay them at a price that they value. Win-win, not lose-win, or lose-lose. And I'd like to hear your objective definition of a "real philosopher." I'm sure it's not based on the arbitrary say so of others (sarcasm).

:)

Let's talk again in a century.

Dear Brian Anderson

I take exception to several parts of your version of Rand's world view.

I believe that your difficulty lies in your failure to project the argument into it's inevitable consequence. The eugenics movement was so deeply flawed not by it's premise, which in itself is a reasoned argument based on clear demonstrable evidence, but by it's failure to admit that in practice it requires somebody to impose a definition of the ideal man, then conduct a ruthless cull of everybody else.

Rand's financial version is no better than the fascist one that was expressed in Europe. Theirs chose the Aryan Ubermench as the ideal and culled Jews, the disabled,Poles, Roma, homosexuals, and then everybody else who either disagreed with the powerful or possessed something the powerful wanted for themselves.

Rand's chooses the wealthy who display the ruthlessness necessary to impose their own fantasy on the rest of us.

Here's the thing, There is no ideal type. Money as often represents evidence of a specific kind of insanity as it does any kind of talent. Then there are so many other kinds of people who have no relationship with money. Children, the ill, the victims of theft, the elderly, saints and mystics, the oppressed, geniuses, idiots, wageslaves and actual slaves, the conquered, lovers, mothers with children who need care.

Who will cull these from among us? Will you? The ascendence of the Ideal dictates that none of these may exist to give the lie to her epistemological folly.

Knowledge is always in a state of rapid change. Those who differ from your ideal are not wrong to exist.

More, our own survival requires that we arrange for their welfare, because we have no way of knowing what value that may turn out to have.

In fact, the presence of a delusional belief that you can know what qualities of humanity are ideal disqualifies you from consideration as one who should be allowed to decide questions of the well being of society.

We are all compromised, Brian Anderson

I myself am thoroughly opposed to the income tax. Yet I pay it, does that make me a hypocrite? No, I face no other alternative, except jail. I have paid, unwillingly MY money into SS and intend to get every last penny out of it that I can.

No, you are NOT thoroughly opposed to income tax. You compromise yourself because there is an alternative which you are unwilling to bear: jail. Paying it DOES make you a hypocrite.

Or are you going to argue semantic nuance?

My point is Ayn Rand is lost in semantic nuance as well. Objectivism and the existence of objective reality is in itself subjective. Objective knowledge vis-à-vis subjective reality is oxymoronic before it hits the dirt.

We all create our own reality. And one person's reality is no more real than another's. Speculating or calculating what is or may be the 'real reality' (objectivism) is nothing more than statistical analysis. And statistics prove nothing. Thus as a philosophy, objectivism is little more than saying my reality is superior to yours. Hence the selfish gene permeates the philosophy.

Response to Baily

"Rand's financial vision is no better than the fascist one that was expressed in Europe." Quite wrong. Fascism requires the use of physical force by the state in the economy. Rand advocates for the complete separation of state and economy, and the TOTAL elimination of PHYSICAL force from society. There is no such thing as "financial force." Financial force is an equivocation. There is no coercion involved in the hiring/firing of employees or among traders voluntarily exchanging value for value. Steve Jobs did not earn his billions by sticking a gun to peoples' heads. He made billions by creating products that people wanted to buy. And he deserved to keep every penny.

Response to igbymac

By your own logic, you support the bailout of the auto industry, as well as the bailout of Wall Stree. After all, YOU paid taxes, when you could've chosen not to. I'm sure you supported all of President Bush's actions, since YOU paid your taxes to him, right?

As for objective reality, all of objective reality rests on three axioms: Existence, Consiousness and Identity. By the mere fact that you uttered the statement "we all create our own reality," you are tacitly admitting that there must exist in reality that there is someone to invent his own reality, that this individual has consciousness by which to create his own reality, and that this individual has a particular identity by virtue of the fact that he is an individual that exists. You see, that's the funny thing about axioms, in order to refute them, they have to accepted and used in the process of any attempt to deny them.

However, this is not likely to impress or persuade the likes of you, but I will say this: If you hold that everyone creates their own subjective reality, I'd like you to give me one damn good reason why I should listen to YOUR version of reality, since yours is no better than mine. You can't, since anything you say, according to you, is completely subjectively based on YOUR reality, and is therefore completely arbitrary. Checkmate.

so...

Your argument then is let them eat dirt?

The whole point of an unregulated economy is that it results in huge bloated parasites sucking off all of the blood from our economy at every point available. At banking and at insurance and at energy and at medicine etc. You claim there is no force used in depriving families of the means to live, but you don't explain what they are supposed to do then. Just die, and decrease the surplus population?

Steve Jobs created something that didn't exist before, so that argument fails. He actually contributed real value, and robbed nobody to do so. Most of you squat like toads in the middle of a river of value that should be circulatng, and suck it dry, leaving the rest of the world dying of thirst.

Bankers, realtors, brokers, traders. These contribute nothing, they merely remove the value from the creators of things and put it in their own pockets. It's theft, and the only justification is they do it because they can.

Insider traders, who bribe the regulators to manipulate value out of it's proper course and into their own mouths, then claim some higher morality gives them the right. Ayn said so.

Please.

I'm actually more interested in the Nathaniel Branden angle

Wasn't he the guy who did all that research (and wrote all those books) about self-esteem, and how to improve it?

I'd really like some insightful commentary into how those two facets (Objectivism, self-esteem) played into each other.

Response to Baily (second)

If bankers, realtors, brokers, and traders are such horrible individuals who create no value for their clients, then why do their clients voluntarily deal with them? Noone is forcing you, Baily, to have a bank account, to buy a house, or even to work. And tell me, how could inside traders bribe regulators to manipulate value, if there weren't regulators tinkering in the economy to begin with? You know, the same regulators that YOU advocate for.

"So, your argument then is to let them eat dirt?"

Man's nature is such that he must work to produce the values to sustain his life. What man produces by his own work and effort is his property. There can be no such thing as a right to someone else's life or property. Healthcare, for example is not something that nature provides on it's own. To claim that someone has a right to healthcare, means that someone else is charged with the unchosen responsibility of providing for those in need. No philosopher in history has ever given a legitimate reason why one's need is a claim on the lives of others, and I dare say that you can't either.

In a free society, individuals (adults) are responsible for securing their own well being. Just as they have no master state controlling their lives, so they do not have a master state providing for their needs. If such individuals need assistance, then private, voluntary charity will have to provide.

One last point, it is a Marxist myth that you get rich by exploiting the poor. If they're poor, how did you get their money to begin with? And if these billionaires are responsible for poverty, then what accounts for all the poverty in history before capitalism and the industrial revolution?

Baloney

Every man (woman and child) stands on the shoulders of other men (women and children) both in the present and over the span of recorded and unrecorded history.

To suggest, as Rand and her acolytes and cult followers do, that the production of an individual is simply his or her own to dispose of, utilize, waste or hoard is complete and utter nonsense.

The United States, in particular, is the most flagrant example of taking 'advantage' of the labour of others to create its current level of economic activity - the huge majority of which DOES not accrue to the 'benefit' of the folks who do productive work.

Rand and her followers, like Alan Greenspan, live in a delusional netherworld that ignores history, human nature and the needs of the environment - to mention just three elements.

It is not surprising that Rand wrote fiction - what is surprising is that any nominally intelligent human being treats that fiction as anything more than a fairy story.

Rand's personal life, her filthy personal habits and the utterly dictatorial way she treated even the people who she relied upon for help and support - in addition to the intellectual emptiness of her bankrupt philosophy - make the mystery of her continued popularity an even bigger puzzle.

Response to Brian Anderson

Yes we are all compromised. Rhetorically, didn't I unequivocally state that up front?

Then again, your deflective argument assumes I pay taxes; whether I do or do not is moot. The issue referenced your use of the word "thoroughly".

Where you are coming from with the "likes of you" comment is a little off-the-wall. Pray tell, what is it about the "likes of me" that undermines my understanding or attempt to understand your sophistry?

I like this though:

If you hold that everyone creates their own subjective reality, I'd like you to give me one damn good reason why I should listen to YOUR version of reality, since yours is no better than mine.

My reality is dynamic, isn't yours?

You can't, since anything you say, according to you, is completely subjectively based on YOUR reality, and is therefore completely arbitrary

Since when did subjective mean arbitrary?

"Checkmate"? Get over yourself.