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.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

How does Rand claim that she

How does Rand claim that she came up with the ideas. Nothing she came up with is new. She stole ideas of classical liberalism and fabricated her own objectivist philosophy which I have an extremely difficult time distinguishing from libertarian thought to begin with.

Oh, wait... She was a Zionist. So, she had to weave into her objetivism an out for killing Palestinians and taking their land - that is basically how it differs. Objectivism is actually a form of Libertarian Relativism. Follow the non-agression principle whenever it suits you, when Zionism can't be advanced by doing so, ignore the non-agression principle. Zionist garbage.

You are ignorant of the subject

She called her philosophy "Objectivism" because she discovered (for lack of better term) that human thought must be objective in order to understand reality because reality itself is objective.

She was not the first philosopher to identify reality as objective. But she WAS the first philosopher to identify knowledge as objective.

That does not mean that she always arrived at good or correct conclusions from there.

But EPISTEMOLOGY is one of the two primary branches of philosophy (the other being Metaphysics) and her contribution is MONUMENTAL to human understanding.

Now, maybe you should go read up some more and actually understand what she said before looking foolish.

I read Capitalsim: The

I read Capitalsim: The unknown ideal. But I've yet to read anything from her that was not already self-evident or said elsewhere. Maybe you can provide some suggestions.


you have to be very careful in understanding a persons definition of libertarian. This word can have vastly different meanings depending on what part of the world you're in, and what part of history you're in.

She specifically names the

She specifically names the Libertar9ian party.


but here the libertarians she's talking about she's referring to as "anarchists"....free from government involvement of any kind. That's not what Dr. Paul is. He believes there are roles for the federal government - Dr. Paul isn't an anarchist.

She is talking about

She is talking about Rothbard, who was an anarcho-capitalist.

Who uses the word

Who uses the word "pilloried"? It comes off as pretentious, no one has ever heard that word.

I don't know what Rand is talking about. Libertarians as we know them don't advocate any type of anarchy. I guess she is talking about anarcho-capitalism.

Anyone who does not advocate anarcho-capitalism has not fully accepted capitalism.

But there are socialists who call themselves libertarians, maybe she is referring to that.

get a dictionary and expand your world. :)

no need to take offense.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

No need for cheesy words when

No need for cheesy words when there are plenty of pleasant sounding ones to suffice. The word is well out-dated in both tonality and context, it sounds bad.

Some people like to broaden their vocabularies.. it's part of

what separates us from average chimps. If you like, you're welcome to stick to "it, is, me and huh".

Just as a friendly pointer.. Tonality and "it sounds bad" are essentially saying the same things.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

"Pilloried" could have been

"Pilloried" could have been replaced with "ridiculed", "belittle", "berate", "discredit", etc., etc. There are MANY other words which are actually in modern usage. No need to stick to "it, is, me, huh".

Let me let you in on a little secret... Your "advice" sucks. They aren't the same thing. "Sounds bad" generally refers to how something comes-off as opposed to the actual "sound". In other words it doesn't mesh with modern english and when people use that type of vocabulary it "comes-off" as pretentious or trying too hard to appear intelligent. The pronunciation of the word itself "sounds" silly. .

I'll just echo the other persons advice to pick up a

dictionary because tonality refers to how something sounds, most notably used in relation to music but loosely used in the manner that you've used it.

Here let me help you, Zahsnapping.


The character of a piece of music as determined by the key in which it is played or the relations between the notes of a scale or key.
The harmonic effect of being in a particular key: "a tonality of C major".

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Misleading Title

If you actually read what she wrote, she is agreeing with many here at Daily Paul that the Libertarian Party - may not actually be libertarian. The troglodites at Reason are a perfect example. When it comes to collectivist causes, such as killing brown people because they worship a different magic sky daddy, they are all in. When it comes to actual free-market capitalism, with limits of a sound-money supply, they are minarchist instead of activist.

I haven't taken the time to research every thing she has said and compared it to what is "libertarian". But, it is entirely possible she is one. Remember, Glenn Beck calls himself libertarian - so does Rand Paul.

"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

Just take what you need and leave the rest.

I like some of her ideas, and I dislike others. Just take what you need and leave the rest.

That's what Dr.Paul did.

That's what most people do. Stu is trying to paint a picture of disharmony here. He's either being intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.



Theres nothing wrong with

Theres nothing wrong with Anarcho-Capitalism. We just don't have enough wealth or collective societal intelligence for it to work yet.

...And there are still people

...And there are still people who are deftly afraid of their neighbor and feel the need to pre-empt their neighbor's "covetous nature".

I know, what threatens freedom, Mr. Fredomreigning. It is theocratic(religious and non-religious) edicts, which are not open to rational analysis, that cause an irrational fear of your neighbor that supposedly can only be solved by giving your other neighbor a gun and a badge. In short, violent AGGRESSION towards a boogyman that you've never seen, but heard about in church, is what threatens freedom.

Judas snitched out Jesus to the Roman authorities. An-Cap has nothing to do with Judas OR his friggin goats. Doublespeak much?

Those with an understanding of an-cap have no problem rebuting the "violence must be monopolized" idea. Assuming that aggression and defense are the same does NOT adequately address these rebuttals.

An-cap is rather simply actually: governments don't stop violence. They are totally USELESS for this purpose and actually make the world MORE violent. NOTHING eliminates violence, cause this ain't heaven. Free, voluntary trade reduces violence. It's the only thing that has ever done so.

If simply cooperating with your neighbor, instead of living in constant fear of them, reduces violence, then it's actually quite rediculous to monopolize violence..... or to be MORE afraid of your neighbor than a stranger with a badge and a gun.

Support of the State is purely psychological, and has nothing to do with logic(or "making the world better") in any way.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

TwelveOhOne's picture

"Boogeymen" origin

I read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" recently, and one of the gems in it is the origin of the term "boogymen". There were pirates from Bugi who were particularly fierce, and Englishmen would return home and frighten their children with such tales, ending with "behave or the Bugi men will get you!"

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)