What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand

[Ragnar]

Of course YOU brought up Rand's mentor and guiding light HITLER before me, I merely replied to YOUR HITLER post..

In response to Ravi. And with positive proof that Rand is fundamentally philosophically opposed to Nazism (and all totalitarian regimes)

The funniest thing about this thread is the fact that actual conservatives think Rand is an idiot, too.

But the OP would never admit that.

Why don't you start a thread debating the merits of Adolph Hitler? I bet you'll get similar derision.

However, none of the above makes your Godwin's Law meets chemical predestination post any less ignorant. Wrong is still wrong.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

“Racism,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 126

 

[Ragnar]

Ayn Rand did not flee one totalitarian State, Soviet Russia to embrace another, Nazi Germany. The comparison is absurd on it's face. Her whole life and philosophy were dedicated to the freedom of mankind from unnecessary government shackles.

What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument. (An example and symbol of this attitude is Galileo.)

It is from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds—from the intransigent innovators—that all of mankind’s knowledge and achievements have come. (See The Fountainhead.) It is to such minds that mankind owes its survival. (See Atlas Shrugged.)

“What Is Capitalism?”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17

 

[ABikerSailor]

You want to know why I don't "understand" or think Ayn Rand's ideas are good?

Because I believe more in the ideas espoused by Yeshua in the form of healing the sick, helping the poor, and generally looking out for your fellow human.

Yeshua's teachings trump Rand's any day of the millenium.

 

[Ravi]

Now you are truly off the rails, beyond Orwellian newspeak, well into cloud-koo-koo-land. Driven insane by the constant failure of your own philosophy or simply struck dumb by banging your head constantly against a wall of ignorance.

Ayn Rand is damn near the polar opposite of Hitler. The entire point of Objectivist philosophy is a rejection of the use or force or fraud both by man and by State.

Rand is Hitler's twin sister from another mother.

she had a better mustache

She didn't like dogs, though. Or young nieces so she had that going for her.

 

[Ravi]

I'm pretty sure she supported abortion as a method of population control.

 

[del]

Rand is Hitler's twin sister from another mother.

she had a better mustache

She didn't like dogs, though. Or young nieces so she had that going for her.

i bet ragnar looks awesome in lederhosen.

 

[Ravi]

Anyway, the whole Godwin thing is retarded. If you can make a valid comparison to Hitler some dummy crying "Godwin" is just their way of throwing in the towel.

 

[del]

godwin is why we lost the war in southeast asia

 

[Ravi]

she had a better mustache

She didn't like dogs, though. Or young nieces so she had that going for her.

i bet ragnar looks awesome in lederhosen.

Ya volt! I tried to thank you but the button is gone!

 

[Ravi]

godwin is why we lost the war in southeast asia

Good point. God didn't win.

 

[del]

She didn't like dogs, though. Or young nieces so she had that going for her.

i bet ragnar looks awesome in lederhosen.

Ya volt! I tried to thank you but the button is gone!

thanking people is anti objectivist so it was removed from this thread.

 

[Ragnar]

Anyway, the whole Godwin thing is retarded. If you can make a valid comparison to Hitler some dummy crying "Godwin" is just their way of throwing in the towel.

If you could make a valid comparison to Hitler I would concede the point. You can not and I haven't.

In fact, I have provided ample proof that Rand was anti-totalitarian.

 

[Ragnar]

i bet ragnar looks awesome in lederhosen.

I look awesome in everything but I look best in nothing.

 

[del]

i bet ragnar looks awesome in lederhosen.

I look awesome in everything but I look best in nothing.

you misspelled "the dark"

 

[Ragnar]

thanking people is anti objectivist so it was removed from this thread.

Another ignorant statement among five pages liberals refusing to learn, refusing to engage and refusing to think.

What Liberals Don

To Rand, being “selfish” meant being true to oneself, neither sacrificing one’s own desires nor trampling on others. Likewise, Rand’s stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collective—state, church, community, or family.

Was Rand’s individualism too radical? Yes. Her hostility to the idea of any moral obligation to others led her to argue that, while helping a friend in need is fine, doing so at the expense of something it hurts you to give up is “immoral.” In her fiction, even private charity as a vocation is despised; so, mostly, is family. Rand made little allowance for the fact that some people cannot help themselves through no fault of theirs, or that much individual achievement is enabled by support networks.

Yet great insights can come from flawed thinkers. Rand’s anti-altruism tirades often turn their target into a straw man, but she is right that the knee-jerk habit of treating altruistic goals as noble has aided evil—for instance, blinding well-meaning Westerners to communism’s monstrosity. When pundits alarmed by Rand-style individualism scoff at the “myth” of individual autonomy, we should remember that this “myth” gave us freedom and human rights, and unleashed creative energies that raised humanity’s welfare to once-unthinkable levels. Rand’s work offers a powerful defense of freedom’s moral foundation—and a perceptive analysis of the kinship between “progressive” and “traditionalist” anti-freedom ideologies.

Ayn Rand too radical? Flawed? Well, well. Imagine the direction this thread might have taken if anyone bothered to read the OP. Instead the very name Ayn Rand provoked intimidate, thoughtless, hateful and flat out libelous stupidity. A weird hive mind of self reinforcing stupidity that has so long plagued the Left and Right it may very well have brought the mixed economy to the final brink.

 

[del]

^

can't quite get the hang of that quote thingie.

 

[Peach]

I fully understand boring, plastic, artificially thickened plots; also the selfish, self centered individuals who are in most cases forced to became adults. Rand never did, she remained a 13 year old, wrapped up in her mirror, and convinced the world revolved around her. Read Harold Robbins instead, he had an actual imagination, and did not need to create "philosophies" to sell his trashy books.

 

[Ravi]

Anyway, the whole Godwin thing is retarded. If you can make a valid comparison to Hitler some dummy crying "Godwin" is just their way of throwing in the towel.

If you could make a valid comparison to Hitler I would concede the point. You can not and I haven't.

In fact, I have provided ample proof that Rand was anti-totalitarian.

And I've provided ample proof that her philosophy was similar to Hitler's. A point which you ignored.

 

[Bfgrn]

thanking people is anti objectivist so it was removed from this thread.

Another ignorant statement among five pages liberals refusing to learn, refusing to engage and refusing to think.

What Liberals Don

To Rand, being “selfish” meant being true to oneself, neither sacrificing one’s own desires nor trampling on others. Likewise, Rand’s stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collective—state, church, community, or family.

Was Rand’s individualism too radical? Yes. Her hostility to the idea of any moral obligation to others led her to argue that, while helping a friend in need is fine, doing so at the expense of something it hurts you to give up is “immoral.” In her fiction, even private charity as a vocation is despised; so, mostly, is family. Rand made little allowance for the fact that some people cannot help themselves through no fault of theirs, or that much individual achievement is enabled by support networks.

Yet great insights can come from flawed thinkers. Rand’s anti-altruism tirades often turn their target into a straw man, but she is right that the knee-jerk habit of treating altruistic goals as noble has aided evil—for instance, blinding well-meaning Westerners to communism’s monstrosity. When pundits alarmed by Rand-style individualism scoff at the “myth” of individual autonomy, we should remember that this “myth” gave us freedom and human rights, and unleashed creative energies that raised humanity’s welfare to once-unthinkable levels. Rand’s work offers a powerful defense of freedom’s moral foundation—and a perceptive analysis of the kinship between “progressive” and “traditionalist” anti-freedom ideologies.

Ayn Rand too radical? Flawed? Well, well. Imagine the direction this thread might have taken if anyone bothered to read the OP. Instead the very name Ayn Rand provoked intimidate, thoughtless, hateful and flat out libelous stupidity. A weird hive mind of self reinforcing stupidity that has so long plagued the Left and Right it may very well have brought the mixed economy to the final brink.

I DID read the OP.

FROM the OP:

Was Rand’s individualism too radical? Yes. Her hostility to the idea of any moral obligation to others led her to argue that, while helping a friend in need is fine, doing so at the expense of something it hurts you to give up is “immoral.” In her fiction, even private charity as a vocation is despised; so, mostly, is family. Rand made little allowance for the fact that some people cannot help themselves through no fault of theirs, or that much individual achievement is enabled by support networks.

Sure sounds a lot like Hitler's Darwinism.

 

[amrchaos]

You know reading the article can help clear up some misconception about Rand.

I think the misconception is found on both sides, but much more on the left.

The message I take from Rand is that being rational, self-productive and fair is the highest virtueman can achieve. It does not mean selfishness as defined by, say , the christian doctrines. But "selfish" as in not sacrificing oneself for someone that does not deserve it.

Who does not deserve your sacrifice is the key here. I veer off from Rand's thinking and say that there are those you should help and those you should not.I leave it to ragnar to defend not helping most peoople