Pajamas Media

69 Comments

1. Dave the Engineer:

Rereading “Atlas Shrugged” right now. Just a few pages into it, where Rand does a remarkable display of the wimpy consensus driven (non)decision making that dooms companies. I’ve seen it often during my working career. What people do not think much about is that large corporations (and the US government is the largest in the world) are fundamentally bureaucracies (”the 98% inert” as it is often referred to), with a few “drivers” (about 2%)who push it along a certain path, for good or bad. Obama can supply the drivers to get what he wants from the government, again for good or bad, probably mostly bad. But he has to entice/reward the drivers in industry to get results. And the real growth is in the little companies, those that are not bureaucracies yet. And he has done nothing to inspire the drivers in either group. Instead he intends to tax them into poverty. This is why socialism fails, you “punish the good for being good” as Ayn Rand says. If he continues not only will he beggar America but the rest of the world will suffer a prolonged recession, why else would Putin warn against us going socialistic? It will turn out Obama is hated by most of the world. How ironic.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:26 am 2. smitty1e:

I think that Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” is the better pick.
In the first place, The Fountainhead makes a better starting place for Rand.
In the second place, her atheism lacks appeal, and her model of personal relationships is sad.
In the third place, less is more: Hayek covers more ground in 1/5 the space of Rand.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:00 am 3. CAUTION:

public protest is not in your interest. you will be identified by the police and tracked in various data bases, and this is not good for you. for the next few years at least, it is much better to maintain a low profile. meet on private property, small cells are best, and face to face of only two people for important meetings. assume the state has an interest in your meeting and is recording everything said, so be careful not to cross the line between passion and threats.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:27 am 4. chris in Toronto:

I posted this on the “CPAC was an epic fail” thread (which is likely dead by now), but I think it applies here equally well.

I’m enjoying very much your thoughtful discussion RAH, Jack and Laura. Nice a civil. Thanks. I’m gonna stick my oar in and feel free to take it for what it’s worth. I’m also not intending to attempt to put words in anyone’s mouth.

Issues of government and governance revolve around the legitimate use of force. Societies are formed by people coming together in order to protect themselves from common enemies, external (foreign powers who would enslave the citizens) and internal (criminals in their midst who would harm them).

Individuals cede to the society (in the guise of a government) their individual right to use force to protect themselves where the use of such force is guided by a codified set of rules. Institutions to provide for the common protection arise: police to enforce the rules against the internal enemies; courts to determine when the rules have been broken and framework for punishing the rule breakers; and a militia to provide the force necessary to protect the society from external enemies. These, the so-called “negative functions of government,” are the province of the legitimate use of force, and these functions require funding; hence, taxation.

The place where liberals and conservatives part company is that conservatives would be happy having a government limited to the negative functions whereas liberals, while accepting the need for the negative functions, envision the government’s role as going much beyond those limited functions. It’s like the difference, (sort of), when designing a business project, between the list of “must haves” and “nice to haves”, where the “must haves” are the negative functions.

It’s ironic that the “nice to haves” amount to set of beliefs. Government should provide education? Either you believe that or you don’t. The government should provide health care? Either you believe that or you don’t. The government should pay farmers to not plant their land? Either you believe it or you don’t. The government should tell you what to think? Either you believe it or you don’t. These are beliefs. The problem, though, is that when government gets involved the use of force becomes the issue. And the question becomes “is the use of force legitimate?” This strikes at the very heart of what liberty is all about.

From where I sit, among conservatives the idea everyone appears to agree on is fiscal conservatism: the enumerated tasks of the government (the negative functions) require funding. This sounds like a really good starting place, a place where the religious and the unreligious can agree to work together towards a common goal, namely protecting the free society that is America. In this case, “free” means for the people to have the jack boot of the excessive taxation removed from their throats.

Again from where I sit, it seems where the religious and non-religious part company is around the concept of “belief”. It appears, to me, as though the religious want to use the state to prescribe what are “correct” beliefs. Please, make no mistake, I fully support everyone’s right to his or her own beliefs; my issue is in using the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force to back any particular set of beliefs. If everyone is free to believe as he or she sees fit, then there is no issue. This is the religious liberty the Founders envisioned and was a large part of the genius of the Constitution.

So, I guess it comes down to this: is the conservative movement a social movement (I’m thinking, here, about what is the “right” way to structure a society) or a political movement (the “right” way to structure a government)? Moreover, I posit that everyone agrees that a successful political movement, by definition the winners of an election (ie: the government), should have access to the use of force. But should a social movement have similar access to enforce beliefs?

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:34 am 5. Craig:

“Atlas Shrugged depicted a future in which America descends into economic chaos due to ever-increasing government regulations. Each new problem spawns new government controls that merely deepen the crisis. The result is a downward spiral that nearly destroys America. Many Americans are finding Rand’s predictions uncomfortably close to real-life events.”

Could you understate that just a wee bit more?

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:47 am 6. Mike2:

“Finally, Atlas Shrugged resonates with many Americans because they recognize that our current crisis is not just about bailouts and budget deficits. It’s also about a more fundamental issue — the proper scope of government.”

Right on the mark! Excellent article. I wonder though if it indeed too late. There seems to be a majority in this country now that is willing to trade their freedom for a little security and the words “life, liberty and happiness” mean nothing to them.

2. smitty1e:

Interesting that you mention “The Road To Serfdom”. Maybe it was not a coincidence that around 10 years ago there was a major upsurge in interest in Medieval music amongst the young people. Does society instinctively feel what is coming?
————————————
Who is John Galt?

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:49 am 7. HardHeadedWoman:

I read “Atlas Shrugged” as well as “The Fountainhead” when I was a Freshman in High School–about 40 years ago. At the time I really had no understanding of what the books were about but I liked the story and wanted to be like John Galt. Pretty much have forgotten what they were about but it must have had more of an effect on me than I would have thought since my parents were Democrats and I’ve ALWAYS been Conservative.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:06 am 8. Jerry:

The reason that Obama will succeed in his designs is that he is playing the bread and circuses card. He has promised a little bit to many voters. Lacking the big picture, the many will take whatever they can get from a bad situation, hoping for the best. Their “inner group” will get smaller as times worsen. Soon, just “my city”, then just “my family” and then it will be “every man for himself.” Obama knows well the political value of “divide and conquer.”
/
However, Obama is continuing to build his base of support. He is building institutions that have their start with him and will owe their existence to his largess. I continue to receive his email regarding the need for parlor meetings and “organizing on a grassroots level.” Should he build those independent institution such as Acorn, it will set America up for a violent confrontation between its citizens. Here comes the Revolution. Poor America – in every which way you can imagine it.

Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven; Cloward-Piven;

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:29 am 9. Class Clown:

I am not reassured by any renewed interest in Ayn Rand. Her philosophy may loosely overlap with conservative “small government”, but her concept of individual rights is really just rationalization for narcissism and self-indulgence. That, of course, is exactly what has led us to modern “liberalism”, and that is a temptation that true conservatives must resist at all costs.

I would bolster my point further by citing my own experience of trying to talk to “Objectivist” proselytizers in college. Other than a veneer of limited government rhetoric, those Ayn Rand acolytes were almost wholly indistiguishable from garden-variety hippies, and they had the same wish list: legalized drugs, free sex, and no societal obligations of any kind.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:51 am 10. frank:

If you really want a shocking read, try the “Grand Inquisitor” chapter from The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan was decrying the church and not Obama’s government, but the gist is the same. People will gladly hand over their souls for a moment’s peace.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:55 am 11. Steve P.:

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is bogus because:

1. It is a reactionary philosophy, and reactionary philosophies are always flawed and problematic. Consider the source -Ayn Rand was a wealthy girl who sadly got all her money taken away by Russian Communists. So she grew up hating wealth distribution and started a whole movement around it. Like a scientist, a philosopher should seek knowledge without any preconceptions. Preconceptions will always skew your conclusions. Ayn’s preconception was that any redistribution of wealth or curtailing of individual freedom = evil. So therefore her entire philosophy was already loaded from the start. It’s as if Newton, in his observations of gravity, started with the preconception that only certain apples can fall to the ground. The greatest irony of Objectivism is that, by scientific standards, it is not objective.

2. Ayn Rand was not a biologist or anthropologist, yet she claimed to have authoritative insight into the human condition. She argued that the human animal is an individual by nature, and that human happiness and virtue can only really be gained by living a rationally self-interested life. However, if you ask any modern day biologist about the true origins and characteristics of the human species, he would laugh at Rand’s judgment. The human animal, like all mammals, is a pack animal that has for the 2 million years of his existence (and millions of years before that) lived in communal, hierarchical environments like chimps and gorillas. An early human who lived a “rationally self interested life” would soon find himself ejected from his tribe and left to fend on his own, where he would be an easy target for predators and other tribes. The community, and the safety and comfort it offers, is the basis of our ‘civilization’ and has been for millions of years. Go look at other primates, and see how many of them are “rationally self-interested”. But Ayn Rand comes along and argues that now that we have money, millions of years of evolution are now out the window because we can buy the things that the community used to provide for free. Obviously, Ayn Rand is not a scientist.

3. No civilization would ever freely accept the system that Ayn Rand advocates. It’s a step away from anarchy. It would have to be forced upon a populace. And the act of forcing this system upon free people would be totally counter to the philosophy.

I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged as much as the next guy, but it’s really important to remember that at the end of the day the librarian has to stack it under “Fiction”.

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:01 am 12. Delia:

10. frank:

“People will gladly hand over their souls for a moment’s peace.”
~

*shudder* -And, that’s exactly the cowardice, fear bogged attitude that helps bring backwards people like Obama into [lap-dog's main stream media] limelight and turns a hapless country awry. It’s an awful crux to bare.

The cost for being lulled into socialism by a narcissistic Marxist may break our backs but I’m willing to put my @ss on the line for the good of our country if I can help us survive this mess from turning America into a third world slum.

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:05 am 13. Marie Claude:

Ayn Rand and Simone de Beauvoir, same combat on a different agendas, one is my own private enterprise the other our common property

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:17 am 14. ArrghNot:

“People will gladly hand over their souls for a moment’s peace.”

or my favorite:

“Is life so dear, and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give Me LIBERTY, or give me death.”

-Patrick Henry

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:36 am 15. WeAreJohnGalt!:

chris in Toronto: excellent deconstruction of an issue I have not yet heard debated. Or perhaps we have, but just not stated in terms so easily understood and discussed.

It clarifies the fear that we are about to see our government use their power of force to enforce a social agenda that is not agreed upon by all. They have taken a collectivists view that needs of the individual groups outweighs the needs of individuals to keep and profit from the fruits of their labors.

Is this a power we are ceding our government? , the right to impose a social order, through the victories of elections? Are we even discussing this?

The Constitution is fairly clear…..but the answer was no……now the question is, are we willing to stand up for the constitution?

It is the Constitution that protects our individual liberties: the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (no guarantee to happiness, of course). Without these, we are serfs of the state.

This is the choice of our times.

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:49 am 16. Brian:

Steve: Your comments, frankly, are absurd. You start by claiming you’re going to refute Rand’s *philosophy*. Point 1 is an attack on Rand as a person, not on her philosophy. Now you must show that ad hominem is a valid argument. Your second point argues from the evolutionary history of mankind from earlier hominids that we *should* live like them. Now you must show that ad antiquitatem is a valid argument. Your third point asserts that Rand was in favor of total anarchy in order to claim that her philosophy violates the very principle she promotes. Now you must show that a straw man is a valid argument.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:09 am 17. JackDoitCrawford:

I hope that every government agency is listening to me and recording and repeating what I say. I want them to know what I know about Ayn Rand. Maybe they will read her themselves and start a new, better life for themselves.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:12 am 18. Brian:

smitty1e: Why is your emotional repulsion to certain parts of Rand’s philosophy valid in consideration of its veracity? If you do not understand how she arrives at atheism, for example, then you have not really understood any of it, since *reason* is at its foundation.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:16 am 19. e:

11. Steve P.:

So you’re saying Ayn Rand shouldn’t be listened to because:

1. She has personal experience with the wealth redistribution and its aftermath that she writes about?
2. She’s not a scientist?
3. Her ideas and the situations she describes are scary?

as for #2, joining a pack is often in a creature’s self interest as you have already highlighted a few reasons. Building on that sometimes a Beta pair will split off from a pack to form one of their own pack because it is in their self interest regarding food, mating and power. Lower pairs and males will often do the same. Its sometimes better to be on your own.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:31 am 20. Marc Malone:

Very nice article. Makes a great point about movements fizzling. Only the future will tell us if this wound being inflicted is: mortal; permanently debilitating; or merely deep enough to cause such long-lasting pain that it will become infamous, and thus, mortal to the inflicter.

Mortal will lead to an armed revolution and a new government. Greatly painful will lead to a peaceful rejection of the miscreants and permanent discrediting of socialistic philosophy. Debilitating will lead to enslavement for generations, the worst of all outcomes.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:38 am 21. Jimmy's Attack Rabbit:

Limiting the scope of gov’t. is going to require a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of Senators and Congressmen. The 22nd amendment, (Presidential Term Limits), is;

Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

The Tea Party folks may rally around voting the bums out and voting for candidates who swear they will vote for a constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms and submitting that amendment to the states for ratification.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:55 am 22. Seerak:

That, of course, is exactly what has led us to modern “liberalism”, and that is a temptation that true conservatives must resist at all costs.

When all you have is a hammer…

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:57 am 23. 888:

Liberal elitists are masters at covering up the truth and twisting the facts so that fair-minded, responsible, truth-seeking individuals come out looking like nutcases.

The mainstream media and liberal elitists have to distract Americans from asking legitimate questions about government and about Obama because they know they are complicit in the biggest cover-up and fraud in our country’s history — i.e., allowing and pushing for the Constitutionally-ineligible Obama to become president.

The mainstream media and liberal elitists engaged in another massive cover-up, and this one involves the entire world and the future of everyone’s grandchildren. These arrogant revisionists of the truth and of history are covering up for Carter and Clinton’s destructive Community Reinvestment Act and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd’s allowing Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to flourish and then implode, leading to this great depression we are all now witnessing. These irresponsible few destroyed the global banking and mortgage industries, put millions of people out of work and caused countless businesses to fail, lost trillions in people’s retirement funds the world over and created the worst financial and economic crisis in over 70 years. And, all in the name of getting votes from people whom the government helped to buy mortgages they couldn’t afford.

Now, the responsible people have to bail out the selfish, irresponsible people because selfish, irresponsible government that created this mess in the first place, thinks that to solve it, they have to give again to the selfish, irresponsible people.

Here’s a taste of Barney Frank at his finest, defending the strength of Freddie & Fannie and opposing mortgage reform (this is from our Canadian friends who seek to expose the truth): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Mar 2, 2009 - 11:30 am 24. Rotwang:

Ayn Rand wrote extremely wordy, pictureless comic books for alienated, depressed teenagers who already blamed “other people” for their sense of social isolation, and welcomed a fictional hero who made self-absorption and lack of empathy seem like superior, heroic qualities. That’s why her books were always popular among the “Future Travis Bickles” and “Most Likely to Commit Mass-Murder” types when I was in high school.

“John Galt” did for pimple-faced stock boys who couldn’t get laid what “Spider-Man” did for geeky, nearsighted brainiacs who couldn’t figure out why the John Galts of the world were so corrupt and selfish — i.e., made virtues out of a porridge of pathetic personal weaknesses and emotional pathologies, and provided a fictional arena where their idealized super-selves could beat up on their enemies.

My theory has always been that Objectivism never caught on because Amway promised the same things, but didn’t require as much reading.

Mar 2, 2009 - 11:55 am 25. Dana H.:

In the 60s and 70s, there was great renewed interest in free market ideas, which ultimately led to the Reagan Revolution and a 20-year bull market. Yet, even before the latest crisis, interest in these ideas had waned. G.W. Bush, a conservative, gave us such statist measures as McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the greatest expansion of the welfare state since Johnson (Medicare drug plan).

So, what happened to the free market ideas of Hayek, von Mises, et al.? What happened is that the free marketeers ignored the moral realm. They neglected to address the fact that capitalism depends on a morality of rational self-interest, while conventional morality advocates altruism and self-sacrifice.

Any movement that lacks moral fire will fizzle. So people don’t need to merely re-read Hayek and co. They need to read or re-read Ayn Rand and to understand that you cannot on the one hand support freedom and capitalism, while on the other hand denouncing their moral foundations. If altruism and self-sacrifice are good, then Obamanomics is indeed what we need. (And if people merely think they are good, Obamanomics and its resulting destruction is what we will get.)

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:16 pm 26. Don Kenner:

Hey Rotwang (accurate screen name?):

Even if depressed, alienated teenagers latched on to Rand’s novels, this would say nothing about whether her vision of collectivist America was prophetic, as so many believe, or completely off the mark.

I suspect your high school experience was not ideal, and perhaps led to you being the hyperbolic, pseudo-psychologist you are today. Or maybe you just needed a break from your job at The New Yorker…

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:10 pm 27. Brian:

Rotwang: Next time opt for more content and less emotionalism. Then maybe you’ll be taken seriously.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:15 pm 28. Evil Otto:

So, never actually read it, did you Rotwang?

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:27 pm 29. Jeff:

Rotwant, psychological intimidation is not a valid form of argument, FYI.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:53 pm 30. Lia in Nebraska:

Sure, I remember reading Atlas Shrugged in 1965.
Of course I was not slumming with hippies and sampling their version of nirvana, but taking a serious look at life and philosphers. I have a different take on Ayn Rand and her message.
She worshipped Capitalism in all its’ forms. A skyscraper to her was the pinnacle of the Capitalist pyramid of progress, growth, success.
She believed that one should strive for wealth and be able to keep what has been earned.
She detested socialists and the failed dogma of Socialism.
What I find especially telling and no one mentions is that the leading characters in Atlas, the Capitalists, realized that they were destined by the government and unions to support a welfare society. They shut down their enterprises, took the money and ran for the well-appointed “bunkers” to continue to live life as the Kings and Queens of their (smaller) domains. They realized that without their leadership, the working masses would never be able to achieve , build, what they had done.
Looks like Atlas Shrugged is a handbook for Capitalists these days, eh?

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:20 pm 31. Alfred Centauri:

Lia in Nebraska claimed: “She worshipped Capitalism in all its’ forms.”

I don’t imagine that she ‘worshiped’ the form of ‘Capitalism’ we have in the U.S. today.

Lia in Nebraska claimed: “She believed that one should strive for wealth.”

She advocated that one should strive for happiness.

Lia in Nebraska claimed: “They shut down their enterprises, took the money and ran for the well-appointed “bunkers” to continue to live life as the Kings and Queens of their (smaller) domains.”

Odd, that’s not in my copy of “Atlas Shrugged”. In my copy, the ’strikers’ left their enterprises and their wealth to the looters. Galt even left his motor prototype and research notes in 20th Century Motor Works lab. And, while some of the strikers stayed in “Galt’s Gulch”, some (including Galt) stayed in the ‘outside’ world earning a minimal subsistence.

Maybe a re-read is in order?

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:08 pm 32. Tim R:

Steve P. Your comments are intellectually embarrassing. Are you actually serious?

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:10 pm 33. Jeff Montgomery:

Nice piece Dr. Hsieh; I’m glad to see truly alternative ideas get some “air” time. It’s badly needed, since our government’s “repair” efforts (nationalization, bailouts, other anti-market meddling) amount to fighting fire with gasoline. Thanks!

For anyone interested, the Ayn Rand Center in D.C. has some excellent thoughts on the matter: http://tinyurl.com/47urlw

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:03 pm 34. Jeff:

Hey Alfred, nice job of correcting Lia. At least someone passed reading comprehension 101. Opinions are cheap everybody has one, but reasoned opinions are much harder to come by because it takes effort to think things through to logical conclusions. Ayn Rand taught this in every book she wrote. Here’s to taking some time to process thoughts before we let them loose in public places.

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:20 pm 35. dynomitejim:

I started reading the book 5 weeks ago after hearing about it on the Dennis Pregger Show.

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:59 pm 36. Lia in Nebraska:

Alfred, although I not a defender of Rand and the Virtues of Selfishness, I believe my first impressions of what she was advocating were clear. These were not “strikers” you call the leading Capitalists in the book.
And happiness was never her theme, unless you call wealth happiness.
I think you will find clues in the text when you get to the part where the workers are shouting “from each as each has to each as each needs”.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:07 pm 37. Jenny Hatch:

As the woman who gave the Ayn Rand Speech in Denver, I can assure you that the whole of my message was one of individual liberty. I want to address something that was said above. Someone claimed that it was wise to stay anonymous and keep our heads down during the next four years. As a long time political conservative activist, I believe the most important thing we can do is keep our names attached to our faces at these conservative rallys. I can promise you that I was one hundred percent congnizent of the fact that my political activism could come back to haunt me with an unwanted IRS audit or any other sort of political backlash that the Obama thugs may cook up in the years to come. But I pattern my activism on that of our founding fathers who were also aware when they signed the Declaration of Independance that it could potentially be a death sentence to sign that document. We have to be fearless in this fight, or else our childrens future will be one of servitude and slavery. As a final note, I did not “read” anything during the speech, I gave a brief overview of the life of Ayn Rand, and a short outline of the story of Atlas Shrugged, all from memory, used no notes or texts while I spoke. Some of us don’t have to use a telepromter when we give a political speech.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:03 pm 38. Mike2:

11. Steve P.:
“1. It is a reactionary philosophy, and reactionary philosophies are always flawed and problematic. Consider the source -Ayn Rand was a wealthy girl who sadly got all her money taken away by Russian Communists. So she grew up hating wealth distribution and started a whole movement around it.”

Proof??? and then:

“Like a scientist, a philosopher should seek knowledge without any preconceptions. Preconceptions will always skew your conclusions.”

Impossible to do anything without preconceptions. Both scientists and philosophers operate from a preconception.
————————————
Who is John Galt?

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:36 pm 39. John Moore:

@Class Clown:

I am not reassured by any renewed interest in Ayn Rand. Her philosophy may loosely overlap with conservative “small government”, but her concept of individual rights is really just rationalization for narcissism and self-indulgence. That, of course, is exactly what has led us to modern “liberalism”, and that is a temptation that true conservatives must resist at all costs.

Well said.

When I see an Ayn Rand sign or a “Who Is John Galt” bumper sticker, my pimply-faced-college-geek alert goes off.

Hayek is the far more important contributor, and didn’t advocate the libertinism of Ayn Rand. Furthermore, Rand’s human beings are cardboard cutouts – just like Marx’s – they don’t exist in reality. Finally, to illustrate the disconnect between her ideal humans and reality, she didn’t even come close to living up to her ideals – having led a nasty and selfish personal life.

Read Rand all you want – she has some good ideas. But for goodness sake, DON’T CARRY AYN RAND SIGNS AT DEMONSTRATIONS. It turns people off and makes them think (with some reason) that you are a nut or a shallow thinker. Furthermore, don’t believe her philosophy, by itself, is a solid basis for a society composed of actual human beings.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:08 pm 40. joeblough:

Rand nailed it.

No exceptions.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:54 pm 41. Peg C.:

Right now 3 in my family are reading or listening to audibles of “Atlas Shrugged.” Written 52 years ago, it is astonishingly timely and prescient, until you read the Founders, de Tocqueville, Hayek, etc. She followed in the footsteps of a long line of lovers of liberty, true liberty, where Americans specifically and human beings in general should exercise the freedom to be the best they can be and achieve whatever they want. The more people that read her for the first time and educate themselves about the consequences of government overreach and oppression, the better our chances of emerging from this current oppressive cycle with most of our country intact.

John Moore: your argument is simply silly. No one is advocating emulating Rand’s life or the lives of her fictional characters. We really don’t care that your geek alert goes off if you see her name or book title on a poster. There are many people whose work I admire whose lives are less than laudatory. That is a specious argument. Find me someone of great accomplishment who is not a flawed human being. We are all flawed. “…she didn’t even come close to living up to her ideals – having led a nasty and selfish personal life” is a statement of hypocrisy I would expect of a lefty, not a righty. That is beneath you.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:55 am 42. Brooke:

“Rules For Radicals” seems to be required reading for the White House.

Mar 3, 2009 - 4:46 am 43. Alfred Centauri:

Lia in Nebraska claimed: “And happiness was never her theme”

From Galt’s speech in “Atlas Shrugged”:

“By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own *happiness* is his highest moral *purpose*.”

But, if that ‘hint’ isn’t enough, try this from “The Virtue of Selfishness”:

“The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own *happiness* as one’s highest *purpose* are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of *pure happiness* that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.”"

Lia, it appears evident that your claim above is prima facie false.

You also wrote: “These were not “strikers” you call the leading Capitalists in the book.”

I confess to my inability to find a coherent thought in the ’sentence’ you wrote above.

Mar 3, 2009 - 5:54 am 44. oopsif:

“Another reason for Rand’s appeal is her emphasis on the moral dimension.”

It’s interesting to see how quickly conservatives will abandon the dominance of faith in their lives to the vision of an atheist simply because she supports their politics.

Judas Galt.

Mar 3, 2009 - 7:22 am 45. Dana H.:

Lia wrote: “And happiness was never her theme, unless you call wealth happiness.”

I think you need to re-read Atlas Shrugged and focus on the character of Hank Rearden and what was required in order for him to become happy.

Mar 3, 2009 - 9:00 am 46. Lia in Nebraska:

What I come away with from these responses is that there are many interpretations of Ayn Rand and what she was writing about, in those years
when the populations of America were not driven by deceptions, illusions and greed, or mentally reconfigured by drugs of choice. Or Liberal leftists looking for their way to get power over others…not empower them.
Let’s just agree that hers was a different Generation, one that struggled with large questions and deliberated upon their meanings, possible solutions.

Mar 3, 2009 - 9:45 am 47. Alfred Centauri:

oopsif observes: “It’s interesting to see how quickly conservatives will abandon the dominance of faith in their lives to the vision of an atheist simply because she supports their politics.”

The fact is, Rand certainly did not support conservative politics. In “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”, she wrote:

“Today’s “conservatives” are futile, impotent and, culturally, dead. They have nothing to offer and can achieve nothing. They can only help to destroy intellectual standards, to disintegrate thought, to discredit capitalism, and to accelerate this country’s uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship.”

By my reckoning, she was astonishingly prescient when, in 1960, she wrote those words.

Mar 3, 2009 - 9:48 am 48. Karin:

oopsif, I’m a conservative and I couldn’t care less what religion or non-religion an economic philosopher has. It’s none of my business and has no bearing on the discussion. Do I care how Arthur Laffer, or Stephen Moore of the WSJ worship? Of course not. I respect their opinions.

Mar 3, 2009 - 10:23 am 49. John Moore:

As I expected, you missed the point:

We really don’t care that your geek alert goes off if you see her name or book title on a poster.

If you want to have political influence, you damned well better care what people think when they see your posters.

Ayn Rand, for better or worse, is damaged goods in the political symbol marketplace.

Mar 3, 2009 - 11:54 am 50. Alfred Centauri:

John Moore opined: “Ayn Rand, for better or worse, is damaged goods in the political symbol marketplace.”

I think you mean ‘rightly or wrongly’ rather than ‘better or worse’. In either case, your observation is a good one. Ayn Rand, capitalism, and self-interest are, in the current political climate, verba non grata (and wrongly so, IMHO).

A relevant question: What do you mean by ‘political influence’?

Mar 3, 2009 - 12:20 pm 51. johngaltlives:

Ayn Rand was a visionary. Lets not also forget Ayn Rand was also an Immigrant who escaped Stalins Soviet gulag, and spent a good deal of her life as a novelist talking about it thru her novels, especially the fact that she was a contributor to Orwells “animal farm”. Theres a reason that Holly wood(which has had the rights to Atlas shrugged since the 1960s) has never made it into a feature film. They are SCARED that the american public will EMBRACE IT. aTLAS SHRUGGED will expose the Nasty piglosis of the world and the Soroses of the world for the COMMUNISTS they are. Funny thing is, the actress most likely to play the lead femmale role is Angelina Jolie, a huge admirer of Rands. Maybe her father Jon Voight is starting to rub off on her.

Mar 3, 2009 - 12:55 pm 52. John Moore:

I think you mean ‘rightly or wrongly’ rather than ‘better or worse’. In either case, your observation is a good one. Ayn Rand, capitalism, and self-interest are, in the current political climate, verba non grata (and wrongly so, IMHO).

A relevant question: What do you mean by ‘political influence’?

No, I mean specifically Ayn Rand, not capitalism.

The mention in normal public discourse of Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, or John Galt gets one tagged as a loon (rightly so if you are under 25 years old, probably).

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:06 pm 53. Anonymous:

John Moore asserts: “The mention in normal public discourse of Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, or John Galt gets one tagged as a loon (rightly so if you are under 25 years old, probably).”

Ah. I see. I suppose you’re right. I have tagged you as a loon.

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:47 pm 54. Alfred Centauri:

John Moore asserts: “The mention in normal public discourse of Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, or John Galt gets one tagged as a loon (rightly so if you are under 25 years old, probably).”

Ah, I see. So one should wait for abnormal public discourse to mention her?

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:53 pm 55. Ray:

Let it be noted here that, in a rather paradoxical turn of events, the author of this article, Doctor Paul Hsieh, along with his wife Diana, “hoped Obama would win” (quoting Doctor Hsieh’s own words on Noodle Food), and the reason he hoped for this outrageous result is that the so-called DIM hypothesis (by Leonard Piekoff) proves that socialism is a dead duck, environmentalism just a passing fad, whereas rightwing theocracy is imminent:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1821

I mention this now not to detract from whatever merits Dr. Hsieh’s article here may (or may not) contain, but rather because his position on this issue is so inane and so confoundingly out-of-touch that these orthodox objectivist party-liners have simply got to be held accountable for the untenable and dangerous position they propounded.

Doctor Hsieh, you and your wife got exactly what you “hoped” for. And my relief is very great indeed that socialism is deadmeat and environmentalism only a zeitgeist, otherwise I might be worried.

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:55 pm 56. Alfredo:

I am one of the “stupid” people who lived frugally, paid all bills on time if not in advance, and you bet I am damned mad. Nobody consulted with us on this matter.

This community-organizer measure, this ACORN-type solution, smacks as rewarding irresponsibility and greed.

And yes, I am for the Tea Party protests, and the Minute Men on the southern border.

May be it is time to start dusting off again the old Kentucky rifles in the closet. Don’t tread on me!

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:58 pm 57. Lia in Nebraska:

Leaving Ayn Rand in the Generational dust, look to the future and who you may become. Read Toffler’s latest book “Revolutionary Wealth” and realize that our “industrial age and educational programming” is coming to a not-so-dignified end. For all the right reasons, I may add. Time to create ourselves anew.

Mar 3, 2009 - 7:19 pm 58. A.frican-K.orean-A.merican:

There are many comments I have come upon on the internet from folks who claim they read Ayn Rand in the 1970s, or the 1960s, or “when they were kids”–but say that after a short time, concluded that her ideas were “out-of-touch with reality” and decided to stop reading her works. After scrutinizing those types of comments, I always think: “Thirty-five to forty-five years ago, YOU were most likely ‘out-of-touch’ with reality!” Furthermore, why would these people abandon her message(as “kids”)and not have any occasion to re-analyze their opinion of her over the course of FOUR decades?–amidst the age of Vietnam war and MK-ULTRA?! This makes me think there may have been a legion of would-be Objectivists who simply gave-up early in battle to popular culture.

Mar 3, 2009 - 9:38 pm 59. Pat J:

If it wasn’t for the rock band Rush, especially Neil Peart, I would never have heard of Ayn Rand.

Mar 4, 2009 - 9:21 am 60. Dana H.:

Ray: It is far from evident that things would be better under McCain. He supported TARP, ranted against “Wall Street Greed”, explicitly attacked free speech (McCain-Feingold), and favors carbon taxes and/or restrictions. Just as the Republicans in Congress rolled over for Bush’s statist policies because he was one of them, they would have rolled over for McCain.

If you can look beyond the present moment, Obama’s election could be a long-term boon for freedom. The Republicans in Congress look like they might actually develop a spine (as they had for a short while under Clinton). Sales of Atlas Shrugged are booming and Ayn Rand’s name is popping up everywhere. As long as the Democrats remain in control, it will be very hard to blame the disasters they cause on capitalism. With McCain in office, fiascos caused by his own statist policies would smear capitalism’s good name, because the Republican party is widely viewed as pro-capitalist (yeah, right).

Mar 4, 2009 - 11:41 am 61. Pat:

Ayn Rand’s second-greatest achievement was her invention of a new morality – rational selfishness. In grounding her morality to man’s nature as the animal who must think, she proved that the moral is the practical.

And the immoral Christianity and every other religion that preaches self sacrifice and Mother Theresa brother-love – is always impractical. Just look at the collapse of our country right now.

If you are a Christian, you should be applauding Obama as the most moral President yet – total redistribution – total brother love!

You asked for it, brother.

Mar 4, 2009 - 6:46 pm 62. lskdjf:

Ray — I, for one, find it incredibly depressing that the Hsiehs do not have any children, apparently by choice. That’s the salient fact that always jumps out at me when I take a look at their sites.

Mar 5, 2009 - 8:43 am 63. Trouble:

If you are a Christian, you should be applauding Obama as the most moral President yet – total redistribution – total brother love!

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what it God’s” = redistribution?

Uhhh… yeah.

Mar 5, 2009 - 10:55 am 64. Pat:

“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Compared to most of the people living in the world, the average American is exceedingly rich.

But fear not, Obama and Congress are laboring to reduce Americans to the Christian standard of morality very soon.

Mar 5, 2009 - 2:35 pm 65. njcommuter:

“There is no native American criminal class, except Congress.” —Mark Twain

Mar 5, 2009 - 6:31 pm 66. Noesis Noeseos:

Poster #39 makes some good points. There are aspects of Rand’s novels that show human relationships in a sterile, frigid light. It is also true that she was personally rather intolerant and tyrannical. But today, when “the world is perishing from an excess of self-sacrifice” and the moochers and looters have subverted the Constitution, Randian insistence on self-reliance, the rule of reason, and limited, classically liberal government might serve as a kind of antidote. But they will only become effective if they can convince a large number of the citizenry to forsake the entitlements to which they have become accustomed in the last seventy years, for in a democracy people get the kind of government and politicians they deserve.

Mar 5, 2009 - 8:13 pm 67. Tracey Burger:

http://www.redbubble.com/products/configure/9137331

Mar 9, 2009 - 9:25 am 68. solicitr:

Lia:

“Read Toffler’s latest book “Revolutionary Wealth” and realize that our “industrial age and educational programming” is coming to a not-so-dignified end.”

What was that about toting certain books labeling one a loon?

I suppose Paul Ehrlich is on your bookshelf as well.

Mar 18, 2009 - 8:03 am 69. Rich:

I don’t agree with Rand on all things, but I think her book would be an excellent read.

Of course, she did *not* anticipate that the next FDR would be equipped the ability to make any dissenter into a “unlawful enemy combatant” just by saying he is, or with a concentration camp in Cuba for dissenters, or with the Patriot Act to strip away the rule of law, or with the Military Commissions act to authorize torture.

I think our future will be much darker than what she wrote.

Apr 11, 2009 - 10:55 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: