27 votes

Ayn Rand Was NOT a Libertarian

Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought.

But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism. For example, Rand said:

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

***

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis [than a candidate from the Libertarian Party].

***

[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get.

Continue:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'd have to agree. You don't

I'd have to agree.

You don't see anyone on the DP saying "Thomas Jefferson is not a great mind because he owned slaves!"

Criticisms of someone's philosophy should be concerned with their philosophy, not their writing skill (or lack thereof) or sexual endeavors.

Her husband might have been into that kind of thing. Who knows?

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

he may have had a good mind, even a great mind--

he may have said some powerful things, but give *me* John Adams, a good husband and father--

yes, I have always been troubled over Jefferson's personal life and his ownership of slaves.

So, what is new?

And your last line is where I am not libertarian--

I can't respect someone who lives like that, even if a spouse 'approves'; apparently hers did--

but I don't believe he was as licentious as she.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I did when I was 21

But I got better.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Ayn Rand was an enigma, to be sure.

I have heard theories that she wrote her books as guides for the elite, released to the masses as a form of ritual mockery. Her views on Palestine were certainly elitist, there were rumors of an affair with a Rothschild.
So it matters not whether she intended to entertain me, enlighten me or make fun of me matters not one whit. What matters is I found the areas where her words have value to me, and I thank her for that.
Humans are a mixed bag of nuts, every one of us.

To Liberty0First: We really must learn to stand on our common ground and stop harping on the things we cannot agree on. How about you change the subject of your replies, as least PRETEND you are not here as part of the internet PR campaign for Zionism.
How do you like silver, or gardening?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Our anti-Zionists wont be ashamed, What about Murray?

Dear Ayn,

"I want you to know that, even without seeing you, you have had an enormous influence upon me—even before the novel came out. When I first became interested in ideas, my first principle that I had from the start was a burning love of human freedom, and a hatred for aggressive violence of man upon man. I always liked economics, and was inclined to theory, but found in my graduate economics courses that I felt all the theories offered were dead wrong, but I could not say why. Mises’s Human Action was the next great influence upon me, because I found in it a great rational system of economics, each interconnected logically, each following, as in Aristotelian philosophy, from a basic and certain axiom: the existence of human beings. When I first met you, many years ago, I was a follower of Mises, but unhappy about his antipathy to natural rights, which I “felt” was true but could not demonstrate. You introduced me to the whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy, which I did not know existed, and month by month, working on my own as I preferred, I learned and studied the glorious natural rights tradition. I also learned from you about the existence of Aristotelian epistemology, and then I studied that, and came to
adopt it wholeheartedly. So that I owe you a great intellectual debt
for many years, the least of which is introducing me to a tradition of which four years of college and three years of graduate school, to say nothing of other reading, had kept me in ignorance."

Murray Rothbard
1957

Also by Rothbard

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

"Is life so dear, or 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

Rothbard isn't my prophet--

come to think of it, neither is Ron Paul, though I think more of him than of Rothbard.

Mercy, do you have to throw this into everything?!

You remind me of those who claim that anyone who didn't support Mitt Romney was anti-Mormon.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

:)

beautiful.
Was it Koran all along?

I'm sorry--

I can't make sense of what you are saying. Are you speaking in riddles?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Ignore pygmies, stick to THINKERS

Dear Ayn,

"For standing as I do in awe and wonder at the glory and magnitude of your achievement, knowing from early in the novel that I would have to write you and express in full how much I and the world owe to you, I also know that I owe you an explanation: an explanation of why I have avoided seeing you in person for the many years of our acquaintance. I want you to know that the fault is mine, that the reason is a defect in my own psyche and not a defect that I attribute to you. The fact is that most times when I saw you in person, particularly when we engaged in lengthy discussion or argument, that I found afterwards that I was greatly depressed for days thereafter. Why I should be so depressed I do not know. All my adult life I have been plagued with a “phobic state” (of which my travel phobia is only the most overt manifestation), i.e. with frightening emotions which I could neither control nor rationally explain. I have found that unfortunately the only way I could successfully combat this painful emotion is by sidestepping the situations which seemed to evoke it—knowing that this is an evasion, but also knowing no better way. So in this situation. I have never felt depressed in such a way after seeing anyone else, so I concluded that the best I could do is avoid the reaction by not going to see you. I had naturally been too ashamed to say anything about this to you. Strangely, I don’t feel ashamed now; it is as if when writing to the author of Atlas Shrugged, that book which conveys with such immediate impact the pride and joy in being a man, that it is impossible to feel shame for telling the truth."

Murray Rothbard
1957

Why listen to midgets when ORIGINAL thinkers had spoken?

Dear Ayn,

"To find one person that has carved out a completely integrated
rational ethic, rational epistemology, rational psychology, and
rational politics, all integrated one with the other, and then to find
each with the other portrayed through characters in action, is a doubly
staggering event. And I am surprised that it astonishes even I
who was familiar with the general outlines of your system. What it
will do the person stumbling upon it anew I cannot imagine. For you
have achieved not only the unity of principle and person, and of reason
and passion, but also the unity of mind and body, matter and
spirit, sex and politics . . . in short, to use the old Marxist phrase, “the unity of theory and practice.”

Murray Rothbard.
October 3, 1957

your arrogant way of writing ("midgets")--

isn't helping your case.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

There is no case, Ayn Rand had won hands down

Anti-Semitic collectivist thinkers (who see people in groups) did not find much space neither in today's Libertarian Party, nor among socialist-progressives, nor among neo-con republicans.

Ayn Rand was criticizing Libertarian Party at the time Rothbard joined socialists ("New Left".) But even today, RP ideas, as he states them, do sell well ONLY because of bad economy, not on their own strength. And how well RP write-in numbers were in November? 150,000 or so.

she may have had some good ideas--

but she was a poor writer and not a faithful wife--

and there are those on DP who fight collectivism who don't accuse everyone who doesn't put Israel first of being an anti-Semite.

I fight collectivism as much as I can; I strive to put collectivistic thinking out of my mind and life--

but I don't call everyone I meet who isn't just thrilled to pieces over everything Israel does . . .

an anti-Semite.

Liberty_First, *we* all have axes *we* grind--maybe you ought to shift to another axe for a while--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Wow

I agree with you on the Ayn Rand position being superior.

But, you do know that Rothbard was Jewish, right?

That's about the tenth time I've seen you write that anyone who disagrees with you is an "anti-semitic collectivist". Curious....

And then, you go with "But even today, RP ideas, as he states them, do sell well ONLY because of bad economy, not on their own strength". First of all, I think you are looking for the Glenn Beck site. Secondly, the economy has been the same since 1913.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

ecorob's picture

you seem to be splitting hairs, here...

the title is a bit misleading

ayn rand should be held up for what she exposed and not, necessarily, her possibly misunderstood or misquoted views of her own personal politics

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity

Ayn Rand: "The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement."

Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty, and that's why I say they AREN'T libertarians.

One thing I've figured out is that none of these Anarchists masquerading as Libertarians can explain themselves, and that most are self worshiping Judas goats and liars.

The Libertarian party today isn't what it was. The party is now something Ayn Rand could be proud of because of guys like Ron Paul, and thousands of other Liberty minded patriots who took up the call to stand with liberty.

We took what we had available and made it a fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform for Constitutionalists who want bottom up Government. If this was ever "the Anarchist Party", they chose their name poorly, and should have seen us coming, because it's our party now. They should have understood what would destroy them, the truth.

Honestly, an Anarchist, no matter what kind they call themselves doesn't stand a chance against a real Libertarian in a debate ie somebody defending liberty, and I have no doubt that if Ayn Rand was still with us, she would be here and stomping Anarchist ass.

What else is she gonna do? Go play with the NeoConmen or the Communists? No.

She would be fighting the good fight, and from a completely objective and Atheist perspective, one I could respect.

objectivism is inconsistent

objectivism = I'm capitalist but I'm a total soviet comunist when it comes to judiciary system, police, and army.

however libertarian means anarchist, they are sinonyms, only in america the term designate also extreme classical liberals.

please read rothbard and david friedman before sayng anarchist don't have a chance.

And yet I am libertarian, and

And yet I am libertarian, and nothing at all like an anarchist. huh. Once ounce of observation is better than a ton of theory.

Libertarians believe in 100% rule of law and that our laws set us free.

Anarchists believe in 0% law, unless you count the law of the jungle. the two mindsets have nothing to do with each other save for a healthy distrust and dislike of government.

Im not sure how someone who believed fundamentally in the non-agression principal could be considered soviet in terms of courts, cops and armies.

anarchism doesn't mean that.

anarchy means no goverment, not no laws, laws are emergent properties of societies, example: why a currency backed by gold? because gold standard was for centuries a law emerged from interactions between individuals and markets. other examples: lex mercatoria in the italian reinassance, international laws, internet policies, common law, and so on.

regard the soviet thing, why the state should tak the monopoly of coercition? what happens if I build an army, a court or a police agency on my own that give the same services given by the state for less money to my clients? That's what happen: Obama or something else come to my business and put me in jail violating the non aggression principle. the state is a violator of the non aggression principle in its own nature.

Who enforces your laws?

"anarchy means no goverment, not no laws"

Who writes your laws and enforces them, who pays to have them enforced? Will I have any representation or association in your tyranny, or is it going to be "the warlord with the biggest goon squad writes the laws"?

"what happens if I build an army, a court or a police agency on my own that give the same services given by the state for less money to my clients"

Like I said, Anarchists are just little wanna be warlords who covet; they want to rule the world (all the stupid sheep) with goon squads.

Self worship, self devotion, the principle of self interest = self destruction.

If you really break down an Anarchist, they'll tell you straight up; they worship themselves, they're Atheists with a God complex. They want a Godless world where mankind replaces God with some version of themselves, "the group think God", "the great battery God in the sky", with themselves acting as Gods representative on earth.

"Who writes your laws and

"Who writes your laws and enforces them"
who writes common law?

the laws should be enforced by private courts and private security firms, as everyting on the market.

"who pays to have them enforced?"

the consumers?

"Will I have any representation or association in your tyranny"

you can have rappresentation as consumer or as a stock holder (if it's a cooperative you even have one haed one vote) in the current system you have only voice as a stock holder, in the united states you can move to a different state so you have a little choice, but you have to fisically move.

"the warlord with the biggest goon squad writes the laws"?

this is how the sistem work NOW.

"Like I said, Anarchists are just little wanna be warlords who covet"
that's remind me when they said that ron paul people are just rich people that want to get high. So if you want to legalize illegal drugs, you really are a sort of druglord?

however if you are courious about that strang anarchist thing take a look at this short explanation by an austrian economics professor: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf if you have some objection after the reading I would be pleased to read.

Fascist?

You think liberty is what you're going to get with Anarchy? In the real world anarchy and liberty are antonyms.

The real world is filled with people, and people covet. They choose violence to take what they unjustly want. They take liberty with force. Liberty is a word defining a state of self ownership, and Anarchy is a word defining a stateless society, but one man doesn't need any state or government to take another as his property; to steal the products of his labor, to kill and enslave. Men do that just fine on their own without any help from any government.

You're an unapologetic Fascist? You have nothing to do with liberty, that is unless the country you're ruling over with your top down authoritarianism is the size of a living room.

In a country with the size and diversity of the US, a national police force isn't going to work. We're a union of states, and we strive for checks and balances. We want our police and judiciary funded locally to better serve our self determination.

We want the police to answer to us, not your Authoritarian Fascist state.

if I'm a politician I suddenly become a good person it seems.

"The real world is filled with people, and people covet. They choose violence to take what they unjustly want. They take liberty with force."

wow the people is very bad, so take some of the same people and put them in power, surely they will use that power wisely and they will preserve our freedom. Because there is a magic aura inside the congress that make people good, there is one also in the white house, the senate and the supreme court.

sorry for the sarcasm :-)

Bad people don't need government force

"so take some of the same people and put them in power"

Bad people don't need government force, they just need force to take liberty. The only question is will force serve justice, defend liberty, or serve mans covetous nature.

"Because there is a magic aura inside the congress that make people good, there is one also in the white house, the senate and the supreme court."

There's no magic aura, and the world is filled with guys like you so humanity fails. Government fails when the people start voting each other a share of their neighbors labor and property. You were warned, and you should know the real defense against tyranny is a well informed populace that wants liberty and serves justice. Without it, everything you do will fail.

You have a contradiction

You said:

"The real world is filled with people, and people covet. They choose violence to take what they unjustly want."

Well, that being true, just where do you think those who covet through violence are going to flock? They are going to flock to the state.

Don't you think Barry (Obama) covets?

Don't you think John Boehner covets?

Don't you think the Wall Streeters who got bailed out by goverment covet?

Don't you think the General Motors union bosses covet?

Don't you think the people who voted for Barry (Obama) so they could get a "free" phone covet?

When there is an institution that has the legal power to steal from others -- and nobody will hold them accountable for stealing -- don't you think those who covet through violence will be attracted towards that institution?

Are you advocating for an institution that will attract the very people you are concerned about?

There's no contradiction. There's honesty.

"Well, that being true, just where do you think those who covet through violence are going to flock?"

They'll flock to Satan Claus.

They want slaves, plunder, and dominion, and in a free market of violence, all you're going to get is a world filled with little Satan's offering to answer unjust prayers.

Both my Libertarian Government and an Anarchists chaos fail for the same reason; our covetous nature, but Libertarians talk about it, and Anarchists pretend it doesn't exist.

What the world needs is justice, and since liberty is not what people want, justice is not what government force serves. When force serves a covetous mans nature, what you get is injustice and oppression.

Se we either have to address the real problem and overcome it from the bottom up, or impose justice on people who oppose liberty.

Is it unjust to impose liberty on people with force and will it work if we try? I think everything we do is pointless and WILL fail unless we address the real issue, and Anarchists are worthless to liberty because they ignore the real issues. An Anarchist doesn't know what threatens liberty (mans covetous nature) or how to defend it (Justice).

we don't pretend it doesn't exist

we simply study free market economics, game theory, prisoner dilemmas and so on.

peaople may be violent, BUT violence is not the only interest, they care a lot for they money, for example, if the use of force is socialized you didn't pay so much for arrest marijuana users, because the money for that is taken by taxes. But if you have to directly pay for arresting marijuana consumers, you are going to think twice before doing that.
another thing that people usually care a lot more of being violent and steal is avoiding to get stealed and killed and injured, they are willing to pay some money to remain reasonably safe from violence. that's it people is more willing to defend themself than to hurt others without a return, that's why in an anrchocapitalist society laws tends to be in conformity with the golden rule. It may be not perfect (nothing in this world is) but look at what we have today believing a self-restrained government is more utopistic than anarchy.

"look at what we have today

"look at what we have today believing a self-restrained government is more utopistic than anarchy.

I'm not selling utopia, I'm selling law serving justice in a representative government.

Your answer is "a self restrained" free market of violence with you lording over people with your army, police, and judiciary. No thanks. Go to hell Anarchist.

What are you going to do when the rest of us show up with OUR army to put you in the ground where you self appointed and self worshiping Warlord wannabe's belong?

No free market slave camps for you Warlord.

"I'm not selling utopia, I'm

"I'm not selling utopia, I'm selling law serving justice in a representative government."

the foundig fathers designed the usa to be just like that: history teach us it doesnt't work, even if the american costitution and the bill of rights was the best libertarian document possible in that era it didn't worked.

"Your answer is "a self restrained" free market of violence"

"free market has very strict rules" Ron Paul.

however free market of justice sounds better.

"with you lording over people with your army, police, and judiciary"
actually I'don't want to lord over everyone else different from me, I don't want to be a policeman and i don't want to be a judge, I wanto to teach drawing and build houses. As a consumer I would like to have some choice when it comes to choose who has the right to protect my house and my God given natural rights which is also a natural right.