3 votes

"Ayn Rand & Liberterians misunderstood" - good article?

I am still learning about the path of liberty. Is this article a good educational tool?

Ayn Rand and Libertarians Misunderstood
Thursday, October 25, 2012 – by Tibor Machan

Dr. Tibor Machan

Paul Ryan has some affinities with Ayn Rand's political philosophy and is now taking flack for this. Apparently eager to besmirch Ayn Rand and through her Mr. Ryan, claims now abound in the media that go like this: "Rand's libertarianism has an underlying philosophy that says that if you are not particularly smart, ambitious, disciplined or wealthy, and you become homeless, hungry, financially ruined and suffer from premature illness or death, then that is entirely your fault."

Neither Ayn Rand, Mr. Ryan nor libertarians say any of this. What they do say is that if you are in such a state, you by no stretch of the imagination have the authority to confiscate from others their resources. You may ask, of course. And surely that is correct.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Objectivism vs Libertarianism

Libertarians believe the fundamental principle upon which all its tenets are based is the non-aggression principle. Initiating force upon anyone, or otherwise forcing them to do something they would not decide to do for themselves, for ANY reason, is wrong and should not be tolerated.

In contrast, Objectivists believe that the non-aggression principle is a logical extension of individual and natural rights. Because non-aggression is not a fundamental principle, the possibility exists that it could be trumped if it can be shown that individual rights or natural rights would somehow benefit or be preserved.

Thus Objectivists allow for some forms of initiation of force for the greater good, such as taxation to allow for government-run police forces and courts. As well, Objectivists will almost always support free-market, democratic governments, even when those governments choose to initiate force against less-developed nations. They support Israeli aggression not out of Judeo-Christian religious reverence, but because Israel is supposedly a bastion of science and free-market principles in a region overrun by theocratic "savages". Savages do not recognize individual rights, thus the non-aggression principle does not apply to them.

Ayn Rand considered Libertarian affinity for the non-aggression principle to be misguided, foolish and unnecessarily focused on how it should apply to governments. She thought the true way of the world could only be understood by first examining individual rights and building up a complete worldview from there.

That's a very simplistic explanation, and since I'm a Libertarian, I'm sure real Objectivists would boo me off the stage for such an inadequate description :) But, meh.

Thanks for the explanation.

I don't think I would consider myself exactly a Liberterian...just an independent whose beliefs parallel Dr. Paul's.

Ayn hated libertarians

Anyone who lumps Ayn Rand and libertarians together doesn't know basic things about either Ayn's philosophy or libertarianism.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Ayn-Rand Hated Humans ~

~ who were /are not of her breed, or creed. She was a fake atheist.
The witch needs to be pulled down from the pedestal, but the principle of non-aggression will not allow it, - so idolatry & adultery carry on. Her greater hate was reserved for those ~ mentioned in the post above yours, at 12:19.
+1, stay steadfast :)

I think you should see Atlas Shrugged

I saw part 1 and thought it did a good job based on what I remember from reading the book. If you are a reader, read Ayn Rand's books, watch vids and come to your own conclusion. I enjoyed "Letters of Ayn Rand" Leonard Piekoff.

I think it's important to understand some of the greatest thinkers imprisoned in the LP archives, why their ideas never get beyond famous or notorious, but never materialized.

Peikoff in a nutshell


He makes O'Reilly look sane.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Still, the Letters are Rand's, not his

I watched the vid and thought they were not talking about the same thing, it's as if Peikiff had gotten the wrong idea of what the concersation was.. he makes O'Reilly like like a liberal.

I am not a fan of Ayn Rand

I am not a fan of Ayn Rand

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

Please explain the downvotes.

I am still learning and fail to see what is wrong with the article.