Are Randians a cult? :O

[heavenlyboy34]

Ayn Rand and her followers seem more cult-like the more I read about them. Would you agree that they are a cult?

[Gaius1981]

No, it's a common accusation made by those who are offended by Objectivism however (of which there are many!). "Objectivists" is the correct term, by the way.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult1.html

[heavenlyboy34]

No, it's a common accusation made by those who are offended by Objectivism however (of which there are many!). "Objectivists" is the correct term, by the way.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult1.html

Have you read her critiques of libertarianism? She accuses them of "collectivism" and "stealing" her ideas, while in the process becoming something of a collectivist herself. :p

[Gaius1981]

Have you read her critiques of libertarianism? She accuses them of "collectivism" and "stealing" her ideas, while in the process becoming something of a collectivist herself. :p

She argued that anarchy leads to collectivism, something I certainly agree with. This non-Objectivist video does a decent job explaining it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOcFVBoA-o

And in all fairness, the Libertarian Party was founded on her ideas, though the ideas were distorted and Rand was given no credit.

Here's a full list of her criticism of the Libertarian Party, for those who are interested:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

[heavenlyboy34]

She argued that anarchy leads to collectivism, something I certainly agree with. This non-Objectivist video does a decent job explaining it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOcFVBoA-o

And in all fairness, the Libertarian Party was founded on her ideas, though the ideas were distorted and Rand was given no credit.

Here's a full list of her criticism of the Libertarian Party, for those who are interested:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

I don't agree with how the video oversimplifies concepts of "anarchy", and political philosophy in general. :p

[Andrew-Austin]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mozart+was+a+red&emb=0&aq=f#

I don't think present day Objectivists are a cult at all, but back in the day they were.


She argued that anarchy leads to collectivism, something I certainly agree with. This non-Objectivist video does a decent job explaining it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOcFVBoA-o

And in all fairness, the Libertarian Party was founded on her ideas, though the ideas were distorted and Rand was given no credit.

Uh no, she wasn't the first to invent the concept of liberty.

Right off the bat that video got the political graph wrong, it does not mention libertarianism at all, and had a weak analysis of anarchism.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/3889/politicalgraphyf8.png (http://imageshack.us)

[heavenlyboy34]

She argued that anarchy leads to collectivism, something I certainly agree with. This non-Objectivist video does a decent job explaining it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOcFVBoA-o

And in all fairness, the Libertarian Party was founded on her ideas, though the ideas were distorted and Rand was given no credit.

Here's a full list of her criticism of the Libertarian Party, for those who are interested:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

OIC. I thought she didn't make a distinction between the party and classical libertarian philosophy. I guess she and I agree on that.

[heavenlyboy34]

i don't think present day objectivists are a cult at all, but back in the day they were.



uh no, she wasn't the first to invent the concept of liberty.

+1776 :d

[Gaius1981]

If you had read the LP platform back then, you would have seen it clearly (and the evidence is still there). One of the most common catchphrases by Ayn Rand, "There Is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch", became the first official slogan of the Libertarian Party (I believe the old Objectivist "No Free Lunch Distributors" is still around), and the platform itself was build on the principle of non-initiation of force as Ayn Rand defined it. The evidence is abundant. If you wish to read more about it, I recommend the booklet called "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz.

[Gaius1981]

I should also mention that while Objectivists want nothing to do with the "big L" Libertarians of the Libertarian Party, they are not negatively inclined to libertarians as such. This sums it up pretty nicely:


"The libertarians are a loose group; they do not have a specific program; the differences will vary from individual to individual. In a general sense, our main differences from the libertarians is in the fact that the libertarians are concerned primarily, and some of them, exclusively, with economics and politics. When it comes to their philosophical frame of reference, it varies from man to man, and we are usually in disagreement with their philosophical framework, but in agreement with most of their economic theories. Now, Objectivism is not a political-economic movement, at least not primarily. Objectivism is primarily a philosophical movement, which means that we derive our politics and economics from a certain philosophical framework . . . We do agree with much of their political-economic views."

Ayn Rand did, in fact, strongly praise and recommend the works of libertarians such as Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises in her non-fiction literature. In her day, libertarianism was a thriving political philosophy completely separate from the Libertarian Party.

[heavenlyboy34]

I should also mention that while Objectivists want nothing to do with the "big L" Libertarians of the Libertarian Party, they are not negatively inclined to libertarians as such. This sums it up pretty nicely:



Ayn Rand did, in fact, strongly praise and recommend the works of libertarians such as Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises in her non-fiction literature. In her day, libertarianism was a thriving political philosophy completely separate from the Libertarian Party.


Thanks for the info, Gaius! That clears up a lot for me. :)

[BuddyRey]

There are some open-minded Objectivists, but by and large, they are a doctrinaire personality cult just as bad as any collectivist group. They also make libertarians in general look ridiculous; especially when that lying tool Thom Hartmann brings them on his show, falsely calling them libertarians when they have no problem at all with aggression, foreign and domestic.

[mediahasyou]

Are paulians a cult?

[heavenlyboy34]

Are paulians a cult?

lol...I think some are :eek:

[Kludge]

I see more faith in libertarians by libertarians than I do see faith in Objectivists by Objectivists -- not that I know more than a handful of Objectivists.

CFL's webpage reeks of faith and cultishness.

[Truth Warrior]

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)

[heavenlyboy34]

I see more faith in libertarians by libertarians than I do see faith in Objectivists by Objectivists -- not that I know more than a handful of Objectivists.

CFL's webpage reeks of faith and cultishness.

I don't...you must hang out with different libertarians than me. Plus, C4L is not libertarian per se-it's just "freedom oriented".

[Truth Warrior]

It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand. (http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/nabat/nabat1.html)

[sailor]

Ayn Rand was an egoistical lunatic bitch. And her followers are idiotic pimpled dweebs that wouldn`t last two seconds in a bar brawl.

And the whole "objectivist" dogma is just dullardness, Dostoyevski pre-emptively ripped it a new asshole 150 years ago before it was even born for Christ`s sake.

[Truth Warrior]

Ayn Rand was an egoistical lunatic bitch. And her followers are idiotic pimpled dweebs that wouldn`t last two seconds in a bar brawl.

And the whole "objectivist" dogma is just dullardness, Dostoyevski pre-emptively ripped it a new asshole 150 years ago before it was even born for Christ`s sake. Well I've known several Objectivist ass-kickers over the years that I seriously doubt that you'd EVER want to mess with in a bar brawl or anywhere else for that matter. ;) :) They didn't ever really look to start a fight, but they sure finished more than their fair share of them. :D

[Gaius1981]

Thanks for the info, Gaius! That clears up a lot for me. :)

No problem, I'm glad you found it interesting. :)


There are some open-minded Objectivists, but by and large, they are a doctrinaire personality cult just as bad as any collectivist group. They also make libertarians in general look ridiculous; especially when that lying tool Thom Hartmann brings them on his show, falsely calling them libertarians when they have no problem at all with aggression, foreign and domestic.

Objectivists advocate complete freedom of religion, a woman's right to choose, free immigration, the freedom to marry whomever you please, and a complete separation of state and economics, so I'd certainly call them open-minded. Being open-minded does not require one to forsake ones principles in order to appease someone who holds what is considered immoral values however, and many Objectivists are inclined to speak out against such immorality when they are exposed to it (basically issues having to do with the initiation of force).

Many young people who read Atlas Shrugged for the first time go around quoting Ayn Rand while calling themselves Objectivists, without really having any understanding of the philosophy. These are the people who misrepresent the philosophy, just as many of the the hippies and anarchists who campaigned for Ron Paul misrepresented him (giving birth to the terms "Randroid" and "Paultard", respectively).

You can listen to all the Objectivist appearances on the Thom Hartman Show here (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=interviews_hartmann). Give me some concrete examples of what you mean by them having "no problem at all with aggression, foreign and domestic". Objectivists do not make Libertarians look ridiculous – the Libertarians who have that reputation, have earned it by their own actions. The main criticism towards Libertarians in general, is that they make capitalism disreputable by associating it with hippies, drugheads, conspiracy nuts, anarchists and so forth (basically the left wing of the Libertarian Party, I believe).

Regarding the foreign policy advocated by the Ayn Rand Institute – they do not support empire building, and they do not support "spreading democracy through force of arms". They are in favor of quick and decisive retaliation against any foreign nation which initiates force against the United States, not unlike the foreign policy of Barry Goldwater.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ayn Rand was an egoistical lunatic bitch. And her followers are idiotic pimpled dweebs that wouldn`t last two seconds in a bar brawl.

And the whole "objectivist" dogma is just dullardness, Dostoyevski pre-emptively ripped it a new asshole 150 years ago before it was even born for Christ`s sake.

Could you give me a link or reference to Dostoevsky's writings on this? I love his work! :D (currently working my way through "The Brothers Karamazov)

[Dustancostine]

Could you give me a link or reference to Dostoevsky's writings on this? I love his work! :D (currently working my way through "The Brothers Karamazov)

Wow. Me too, where are you at:

Im at about pg. 700 in the Bantam edition.

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow. Me too, where are you at:

Im at about pg. 700 in the Bantam edition.

Publisher: William Benton. I'm currently on Part II, Book IV(page 83): "Lacerations". I'm already rather fond of Alyosha, but pity him a bit too. The other brothers, I go back and forth on.

BTW...what do you think of Father Zossima? ;)

[FrankRep]

Who is John Galt?

[heavenlyboy34]

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

(too long to paste here :eek:)

[Conza88]

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)

Well beat me too it.. SO

Mozart was a Red (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5404826610265339909)

Performed 6 March 1986 at Murray Rothbard's sixtieth birthday party in New York City. The full text of Mozart was a Red: A Morality Play in One Act by Rothbard, along with an introduction by Justin Raimondo, can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

[Dustancostine]

Publisher: William Benton. I'm currently on Part II, Book IV(page 83): "Lacerations". I'm already rather fond of Alyosha, but pity him a bit too. The other brothers, I go back and forth on.

BTW...what do you think of Father Zossima? ;)


I am currently on Part Four, Book 10, Chapter 5

Considering that I am a Randian, I have a spot for Ivan. Dmitri is okay, I don't necessarily like him, but I understand him and see the way his passions drive him. Sometimes I see that in myself, but not to the degree he goes. Alexi is nice, but not my favorite, though I don't pity him one bit, I pity Ivan and Mitya more. Mitya because he cannot control his pasions, and Ivan since he has to put up with the whole situation. Alexi doesn't have to deal with the crisis head on, he is innocent and people let him do as he chooses and is the type that will end up fine no matter what happens around him. One thing to consider though as you read the book, is instead of seeing the brothers as three different characters, try to see them as three sides of the human condition.

Ivan is the Ego, the rational.

Mitya is the Id, the emotional.

Alyosha is the Super Ego, the conscience.

Father Zossima is a very loving man, a very wise man, but his heads are in the clouds. But since he is happy and is loved, I guess his life turned out okay.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've found Zossima rather creepy and disturbing so far...maybe when I'm farther along I'll like him better. :confused: I also don't totally understand why some characters dislike the family so much-using "like a Karamazov" as an insult. What do you think?


I am currently on Part Four, Book 10, Chapter 5

Considering that I am a Randian, I have a spot for Ivan. Dmitri is okay, I don't necessarily like him, but I understand him and see the way his passions drive him. Sometimes I see that in myself, but not to the degree he goes. Alexi is nice, but not my favorite, though I don't pity him one bit, I pity Ivan and Mitya more. Mitya because he cannot control his pasions, and Ivan since he has to put up with the whole situation. Alexi doesn't have to deal with the crisis head on, he is innocent and people let him do as he chooses and is the type that will end up fine no matter what happens around him. One thing to consider though as you read the book, is instead of seeing the brothers as three different characters, try to see them as three sides of the human condition.

Ivan is the Ego, the rational.

Mitya is the Id, the emotional.

Alyosha is the Super Ego, the conscience.

Father Zossima is a very loving man, a very wise man, but his heads are in the clouds. But since he is happy and is loved, I guess his life turned out okay.

[Dustancostine]

BTW Just for clarification, I am a Randian in the philosophical Objectivist sense, not in the Cultish sense.

I think Ayn was correct in her Metaphysical Philosophy. I do not agree with some of the conclusions she and others close to her drew the father they went past Metaphysics. I think her moral philosophy is just, but once again do not agree with some of her conclusions of even that.

Where Objectivism has fallen short thus ( I say "thus", because I think it can still be corrected), is in the area of Love and the human condition. A is A, and humans are human, therefore Human Nature including all of those emotions and desires that Rand hated, must also be integrated into a human philosophy. To date Objectivism vilifies emotions and the human condition, once this is taken into account effectively, only then will Objectivism be applicable morally. But still it is the best philosophical system.

[Dustancostine]

I've found Zossima rather creepy and disturbing so far...maybe when I'm farther along I'll like him better. :confused: I also don't totally understand why some characters dislike the family so much-using "like a Karamazov" as an insult. What do you think?

Well since I am 3/4 of the way through, I have much more of a base to draw from. Zossima's role in the book is to provide Alexi's with moral direction and to provide an example of Dostoevsky's human ideal. He is almost a representative of God (not Christ)

As to acting like a Karamazov, well you will see how they all act as the book, but if you want to jump ahead:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BZvXZ1au0VcC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=%22like+a+karamazov%22&source=web&ots=aLnHhqPG4U&sig=BJHbSFcmZtV8z62zx0VpxmwVfCQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Read the bottom of 350 and the top of 351.

[Dustancostine]

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--104-Dostoevsky_Nietzsche_Ayn_Rands_Moral_Triad.aspx

Interesting article on Rand, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche.

[Xenophage]

If you're a Goldwater republican, like Ron Paul is, you owe a tremendous debt to Rand. She campaigned VERY hard for Barry Goldwater, writing op-eds and appearing on television. She was devastated when he lost.

There are certainly some Objectivists that get steeped in dogma, and it was worse while Rand was alive because she really did create a cult of personality. I think a vast majority of Objectivists are not that way at all, however, and even many who *used* to be that way were able to break out of it!

I'm an Objectivist, and here I am on Ron Paul forums espousing Rothbard ;)

Now, of course, if you *understood* Objectivism, you wouldn't ask these silly questions. Objectivism is probably the most open-minded philosophy you could adopt, as long as you aren't willing to 'open your mind' so far as to abandon logic. Objectivists do not believe in "self-evident" things, or automatic knowledge, but we believe in thinking for oneself and coming to logical conclusions. Most Objectivists become Objectivists because they are already extremely critical of society's accepted 'truth.' A wise Objectivist is ready to re-examine his own conclusions and premises, however logical he thinks he might already be, because he knows that to err is human - wheras a newcomer to the philosophy is more likely to parrot Ayn Rand, even when she makes mistakes.

Does that make sense?

Nobody was better than Ayn Rand at presenting an argument and making it sound completely, indestructibly logical - even when she was actually committing egregious errors.

Anyway... Objectivism is an open system! It practically demands that you question it.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--104-Dostoevsky_Nietzsche_Ayn_Rands_Moral_Triad.aspx

Interesting article on Rand, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche.


Thanks-I liked it. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Now, of course, if you *understood* Objectivism, you wouldn't ask these silly questions.

"There are no silly questions-only silly answers". ;)
-My first music teacher

[Xenophage]

"There are no silly questions-only silly answers". ;)
-My first music teacher

Your face is silly!

[heavenlyboy34]

Your face is silly!

lol....

Your face is poorly lit and has an odd angle! :eek:;) (j/k)

[Truth Warrior]

If you're a Goldwater republican, like Ron Paul is, you owe a tremendous debt to Rand. She campaigned VERY hard for Barry Goldwater, writing op-eds and appearing on television. She was devastated when he lost.

There are certainly some Objectivists that get steeped in dogma, and it was worse while Rand was alive because she really did create a cult of personality. I think a vast majority of Objectivists are not that way at all, however, and even many who *used* to be that way were able to break out of it!

I'm an Objectivist, and here I am on Ron Paul forums espousing Rothbard ;)

Now, of course, if you *understood* Objectivism, you wouldn't ask these silly questions. Objectivism is probably the most open-minded philosophy you could adopt, as long as you aren't willing to 'open your mind' so far as to abandon logic. Objectivists do not believe in "self-evident" things, or automatic knowledge, but we believe in thinking for oneself and coming to logical conclusions. Most Objectivists become Objectivists because they are already extremely critical of society's accepted 'truth.' A wise Objectivist is ready to re-examine his own conclusions and premises, however logical he thinks he might already be, because he knows that to err is human - wheras a newcomer to the philosophy is more likely to parrot Ayn Rand, even when she makes mistakes.

Does that make sense?

Nobody was better than Ayn Rand at presenting an argument and making it sound completely, indestructibly logical - even when she was actually committing egregious errors.

Anyway... Objectivism is an open system! It practically demands that you question it.

Well stated. ;)

+ 1 :)

[sailor]

Could you give me a link or reference to Dostoevsky's writings on this? I love his work! :D (currently working my way through "The Brothers Karamazov)


http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--104-Dostoevsky_Nietzsche_Ayn_Rands_Moral_Triad.aspx

Interesting article on Rand, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche.

Yeah, it is the Notes from the Underground, albeit Dostoyevski`s themes were fairly constant so for example there will be some material in other works as well, for example in the Crime and Punishment (which said a single induvidual no matter how "great" can be a moral reference to himself).


BTW HB34, to see where Randroid cultism leads to read some of the books from the The Sword of Truth series. It is the most appaling moral relativist BS you will ever see. It makes my mind boil. The objectivist author actually justifies severing people`s heads off and placing them onto pikes. (But then maybe do not read them, if you are used to Dostoyevski it will be a huge step down. :D)



Well stated. ;)

+ 1 :)

You are just partial because you started out as a Randian. ;)

[danberkeley]

If you're a Goldwater republican, like Ron Paul is, you owe a tremendous debt to Rand. She campaigned VERY hard for Barry Goldwater, writing op-eds and appearing on television. She was devastated when he lost.

There are certainly some Objectivists that get steeped in dogma, and it was worse while Rand was alive because she really did create a cult of personality. I think a vast majority of Objectivists are not that way at all, however, and even many who *used* to be that way were able to break out of it!

I'm an Objectivist, and here I am on Ron Paul forums espousing Rothbard ;)

Now, of course, if you *understood* Objectivism, you wouldn't ask these silly questions. Objectivism is probably the most open-minded philosophy you could adopt, as long as you aren't willing to 'open your mind' so far as to abandon logic. Objectivists do not believe in "self-evident" things, or automatic knowledge, but we believe in thinking for oneself and coming to logical conclusions. Most Objectivists become Objectivists because they are already extremely critical of society's accepted 'truth.' A wise Objectivist is ready to re-examine his own conclusions and premises, however logical he thinks he might already be, because he knows that to err is human - wheras a newcomer to the philosophy is more likely to parrot Ayn Rand, even when she makes mistakes.

Does that make sense?

Nobody was better than Ayn Rand at presenting an argument and making it sound completely, indestructibly logical - even when she was actually committing egregious errors.

Anyway... Objectivism is an open system! It practically demands that you question it.

What if I am a Rothbard libertarian?

[Truth Warrior]

You are just partial because you started out as a Randian. ;)

Nope, actually I started out as a conservative Republican. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Nope, actually I started out as a conservative Republican. ;)

:eek:

[Truth Warrior]

:eek: Over some time and repeated first hand experiences, I've just wised up. ;) :D

[Paulitician]

I don't like what the Objectivist movement has become... too militaristic, not minarchist enough etc. but that is just my opinion.

[Matt Collins]

Hey - I've met him several times and I think he's a great guy. I don't think he has a cult following... OH. Wait a minute.....uhhh....err... You meant AYN Rand and not Rand Paul... my bad :p:D:cool:;):)

[krazy kaju]

Objectivism isn't a cult, the OP is just an idiot.

P.S. No, I'm not an Objectivist.

[heavenlyboy34]

Objectivism isn't a cult, the OP is just an idiot.

P.S. No, I'm not an Objectivist.

Well, :p to you too! :mad:

[krazy kaju]

I'm sorry, I don't see where you can justify calling Objectivism a cult. First of all, it is not even a united movement. Objectivists bicker among themselves all the time. Secondly, they aren't as tied to Rand as some people make them out to be. Some Objectivists occasionally criticize Rand. Thirdly, even if my first two points were false, Objectivism does not display any of the characteristics of a cult. Therefore, this thread is full of fail.

In other words, this thread is a shameful attempt at character assassination of all Objectivists. If you want to argue against Objectivism, I'll happily aid you. I, however, have no respect for mass personal attacks.

[Conza88]

Objectivism isn't a cult, the OP is just an idiot.

P.S. No, I'm not an Objectivist.

OH great, so Rothbard is an idiot.

:rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm sorry, I don't see where you can justify calling Objectivism a cult. First of all, it is not even a united movement. Objectivists bicker among themselves all the time. Secondly, they aren't as tied to Rand as some people make them out to be. Some Objectivists occasionally criticize Rand. Thirdly, even if my first two points were false, Objectivism does not display any of the characteristics of a cult. Therefore, this thread is full of fail.

In other words, this thread is a shameful attempt at character assassination of all Objectivists. If you want to argue against Objectivism, I'll happily aid you. I, however, have no respect for mass personal attacks.


In the OP I wrote "Ayn Rand and her followers seem more cult-like the more I read about them. Would you agree that they are a cult?". I asked a sincere question, and this gives you an opportunity to enlighten me as to why you disagree. I'm sorry you found it an attack, because it wasn't meant that way.:( It's certainly no grounds for you to call me an "idiot".

[Andrew-Austin]

OH great, so Rothbard is an idiot.

:rolleyes:

Is Heavenlyboy secretly a zombie version of Murray Rothbard?


Awkward appeal to authority.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is Heavenlyboy secretly a zombie version of Murray Rothbard?


Awkward appeal to authority.

LOL...I don't think so. I haven't read all his stuff yet. I'll take that as a compliment, tho. :D

[krazy kaju]

In the OP I wrote "Ayn Rand and her followers seem more cult-like the more I read about them. Would you agree that they are a cult?". I asked a sincere question, and this gives you an opportunity to enlighten me as to why you disagree. I'm sorry you found it an attack, because it wasn't meant that way.:( It's certainly no grounds for you to call me an "idiot".

So "Are Randians a cult?" is not a suggestive question, in any way.

[Truth Warrior]

Thread post repeat. < YAWN >

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)

[heavenlyboy34]

So "Are Randians a cult?" is not a suggestive question, in any way.

No, but the length of this threads seems to indicate that it's a good attention-getter. :)

[krazy kaju]

O i c. I still think you're a dick for sparking sectarianism. But at least you aren't an idiot.

[sailor]

This is one topic where there is no need to pussyfoot around. Objectivist are not only a cult their ideology is sick and depraved. They belive the end justifies the means. That puts them on par with Trotskytes and neocons and is enough to make any sincere Christian and infact any moral person throw up.

[Truth Warrior]

This is one topic where there is no need to pussyfoot around. Objectivist are not only a cult their ideology is sick and depraved. They belive the end justifies the means. That puts them on par with Trotskytes and neocons and is enough to make any sincere Christian and infact any moral person throw up. There is an Objectivist cult, perhaps more than one. Not all Objectivists are or EVER have been members. ;) I attended a couple of meetings in my late teens, great ideas, some very scary people. :p

[Truth Warrior]

Does anyone know or even have an intelligent guess about where Rand Paul got his first name? :)

[Aratus]

and there were days when ayn rand was flexible and reasonable... sometimes

[Dustancostine]

This is one topic where there is no need to pussyfoot around. Objectivist are not only a cult their ideology is sick and depraved. They belive the end justifies the means. That puts them on par with Trotskytes and neocons and is enough to make any sincere Christian and infact any moral person throw up.

And you my friend are an idiot if that is what you truly believe.

Also I would like to know how you feel that RP said that his two main intellectual influences in his youth were Hayek and Ayn Rand.

[heavenlyboy34]

And you my friend are an idiot if that is what you truly believe.

Also I would like to know how you feel that RP said that his two main intellectual influences in his youth were Hayek and Ayn Rand.

I thought his 2 main influences were Hayek and Mises. :confused::eek:

[Gaius1981]

This is one topic where there is no need to pussyfoot around. Objectivist are not only a cult their ideology is sick and depraved. They belive the end justifies the means. That puts them on par with Trotskytes and neocons and is enough to make any sincere Christian and infact any moral person throw up.

According to Ayn Rand, the end NEVER justifies the means, and there can be NO compromise on this. I don't see what you involve yourself in this debate for, if you have never opened a book by her – she states and demonstrates this in both her fiction and her non-fiction, repeatedly.

[Dustancostine]

I thought his 2 main influences were Hayek and Mises. :confused::eek:

In a npr (if I remember correctly) intiview that lasted almost an hour from early 2007 they ask RP what he was reading and who influenced his political philosophy. He said The Road to Serfdom by Hayek and Ayn Rand.

[heavenlyboy34]

In a npr (if I remember correctly) intiview that lasted almost an hour from early 2007 they ask RP what he was reading and who influenced his political philosophy. He said The Road to Serfdom by Hayek and Ayn Rand.

I once heard him asked about Rand. He said that he liked her work, but that she doesn't like libertarians (or something to that effect).

[sailor]

According to Ayn Rand, the end NEVER justifies the means, and there can be NO compromise on this. I don't see what you involve yourself in this debate for, if you have never opened a book by her – she states and demonstrates this in both her fiction and her non-fiction, repeatedly.

Oh, really? It is irrelevant what she claims. It is only relevant what her stuff leads to when her conclusions are taken to its full lengths. Moral relativism leads to the end justifying the means. They only get around the problem of being moral relativists by distorting the definition of moral relativism thus seemingly exempting themselves and in the process being transformed into the most extremist relativists around actually having the guile to claim their own skewed induvidual dispositions as absolute morality.

[Truth Warrior]

"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."



Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[Gaius1981]

Oh, really? It is irrelevant what she claims. It is only relevant what her stuff leads to when her conclusions are taken to its full lengths. Moral relativism leads to the end justifying the means. They only get around the problem of being moral relativists by distorting the definition of moral relativism thus seemingly exempting themselves and in the process being transformed into the most extremist relativists around actually having the guile to claim their own skewed induvidual dispositions as absolute morality.

I recommend her non-fiction "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "For the New Intellectual".

[sailor]

I recommend: objectivist`s foreign policy (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_foreign_policy)

Even worse than the neocons.

[WRellim]

There definitely WAS a "cult" in the New York group during the 1960's that was centered around the "Nathaniel Brandon Institute" (and a small portion of which apparently still survives and is associated with Leonard Peikoff -- executor if her estate -- it seems to mainly persist on the royalties of her publications).

The piece by Rothbard ("The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) -- which several people have linked to above) is an excellent and thought provoking overview of how the "cult of personality" can quickly be transformed by a small group of "disciples" into a full blown cult -- the only thing that is "wrong" with Rothbard's piece is that it is a bit dated (written in 1972) and was entirely dependant upon information that was available at the time. (Missing data, for example, was the underlying cause of the huge break between Rand and Brandon.)

For a more "insider" view (which surprisingly enough DOES back-up and validate virtually everything that Rothbard covered) the most excellent reference is a book called "The Passion of Ayn Rand" (http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Ayn-Rand-Barbara-Branden/dp/038524388X) -- written by Barbara Brandon and published in 1986. It is essentially a solid biography of Ayn Rand -- warts and all, and contains several chapters that explain how the "cult" happened, and how it all went wrong (essentially following Orwell's "Animal Farm" just w/o the animals). I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has read her works, but especially to anyone who is "in the grips" of any type of hero-worship view of Rand. (Note that you should get the book version -- but IMHO don't bother with the crappy film based on it).



Where I think the book (like Rothbard's essay) has extreme relevance is to the current and future of the "Ron Paul movement"** -- aspects of which DO seem to have parallels to the way that a lot of "supporters" view RP, and the dangers presented by a "hierarchy" of the "inner circle" types, especially when they are form (or are placed in charge of) formal organizations. Basically anyone who DARES to "question" or critique any aspect of the resulting organizations will be promptly considered (by the "cultic" inner circle) as an "enemy" or "heretic." IMO, there is a segment of the supporters exhibit traits of "hero-worship" and devotion that are far beyond rational (and with accompanying actions as well) -- despite the fact that a lot of those same individuals lack even a "basic" understanding of the movement's root concepts, (consider the endlessly recyled/repeated questions/misunderstandings around Banking and monetary systems, even though sufficient resources are available).

** I also see signs of a similar "personality cult" in the von Mises organization with respect to Ludwig von Mises and (ironically enough) Murray Rothbard -- most specifically the "closed mind" and "dogmatism" of prominent Rothbard students (most notably LR). The vast majority of the vMI efforts seem to be focused on regurgitation, reiteration, and republication of the works of Rothbard (and von Mises) as if they were somehow omniscient, and all-encompassing. There are very few "new" works on economics developed by these folks (beyond the addition of "commentaries" upon the existing vM & R "canon") -- it is as if there is a dogma that there is nothing to add -- and to even consider that any of it might need "revision" or "updating" is considered to border on "heresy" (to wit note the view of Hayek's works -- being revisionary in regards to von Mises --as being only "partially acceptable" and a lesser form of "apocrypha" and that whatever and where he diverts from von Mises is dismissed out of hand as without any merit or worthy of consideration).

[BuddyRey]

Well beat me too it.. SO

Mozart was a Red (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5404826610265339909)

Performed 6 March 1986 at Murray Rothbard's sixtieth birthday party in New York City. The full text of Mozart was a Red: A Morality Play in One Act by Rothbard, along with an introduction by Justin Raimondo, can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

Oh my gosh, that was delightful!

Even if I'd never had any reason to admire Murray Rothbard before reading that (and he's already my philosophical lodestar), enjoying that uproariously funny and on-the-mark satire would have done the trick!

Actually, I should come clean and admit that I quite enjoy Ayn Rand's novels on a purely philosophical level. The Individual Vs. Collective theme is timeless, and Rand really does do justice to the bread-and-butter ideological foundations of Individualism in her writings, such as Howard Roarke's courtroom speech.

The trouble is, her heroes are hopelessly stoic; economically, personally, mentally, and physically perfect to a laughable degree (and thus, impossible to relate to, unless you're an automaton). In her very emotionally sterile world, all things which are "non-rational" (i.e. love, sentimentality, faith, and charity) are almost continuously berated, whether directly or indirectly, as the errors of incompetent second-handers or collectivistic arch-villains.

I love her knack for telling a great story, and greatly admire her literary fluency (especially keeping in mind that English was her second language), but reading her stuff can, at times, be hopelessly frustrating for somebody like me, who doesn't want to sacrifice my humanity and sensitivity to be a perfect rationalist.

Interestingly enough, one of her earliest acolytes, Nathaniel Branden, also went on to have a falling-out with Rand, and wrote this surprisingly candid and refreshingly humanistic article which explains, more deftly than I can, what makes reading Ayn Rand a "bittersweet" experience, and how a lot of the Objectivist creed goes against not only human nature, but the very system of pure rationality which it set out to codify.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult)

Decide for yourselves ........ as individuals. ;) :D < LOL! >

[Xenophage]

Oh my gosh, that was delightful!

Even if I'd never had any reason to admire Murray Rothbard before reading that (and he's already my philosophical lodestar), enjoying that uproariously funny and on-the-mark satire would have done the trick!

Actually, I should come clean and admit that I quite enjoy Ayn Rand's novels on a purely philosophical level. The Individual Vs. Collective theme is timeless, and Rand really does do justice to the bread-and-butter ideological foundations of Individualism in her writings, such as Howard Roarke's courtroom speech.

The trouble is, her heroes are hopelessly stoic; economically, personally, mentally, and physically perfect to a laughable degree (and thus, impossible to relate to, unless you're an automaton). In her very emotionally sterile world, all things which are "non-rational" (i.e. love, sentimentality, faith, and charity) are almost continuously berated, whether directly or indirectly, as the errors of incompetent second-handers or collectivistic arch-villains.

I love her knack for telling a great story, and greatly admire her literary fluency (especially keeping in mind that English was her second language), but reading her stuff can, at times, be hopelessly frustrating for somebody like me, who doesn't want to sacrifice my humanity and sensitivity to be a perfect rationalist.

Interestingly enough, one of her earliest acolytes, Nathaniel Branden, also went on to have a falling-out with Rand, and wrote this surprisingly candid and refreshingly humanistic article which explains, more deftly than I can, what makes reading Ayn Rand a "bittersweet" experience, and how a lot of the Objectivist creed goes against not only human nature, but the very system of pure rationality which it set out to codify.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

As an Objectivist, I quite agree with everything you just said.

Ayn Rand isn't even my favorite novelist. Robert Heinlein takes the cake, for me. His characters are incredibly relatable, human, faulted, yet heroic. Plus, science fiction is just my genre :)

While I consider Rand a great synthesizer and original mind of the unparalleled variety, Nathaniel Branden went on to prove himself perhaps an even greater philosopher than she was.... although he started out as a droning carbon copy.

[WRellim]

Does anyone know or even have an intelligent guess about where Rand Paul got his first name? :)


Essentially, he was named after a typewriter.

;)

[Truth Warrior]

Essentially, he was named after a typewriter.

;) Well then they coulda named him Remington Rand, for Pete's sake. :D

[WRellim]

Oh my gosh, that was delightful!

Even if I'd never had any reason to admire Murray Rothbard before reading that (and he's already my philosophical lodestar), enjoying that uproariously funny and on-the-mark satire would have done the trick!

Actually, I should come clean and admit that I quite enjoy Ayn Rand's novels on a purely philosophical level. The Individual Vs. Collective theme is timeless, and Rand really does do justice to the bread-and-butter ideological foundations of Individualism in her writings, such as Howard Roarke's courtroom speech.

The trouble is, her heroes are hopelessly stoic; economically, personally, mentally, and physically perfect to a laughable degree (and thus, impossible to relate to, unless you're an automaton). In her very emotionally sterile world, all things which are "non-rational" (i.e. love, sentimentality, faith, and charity) are almost continuously berated, whether directly or indirectly, as the errors of incompetent second-handers or collectivistic arch-villains.

I love her knack for telling a great story, and greatly admire her literary fluency (especially keeping in mind that English was her second language), but reading her stuff can, at times, be hopelessly frustrating for somebody like me, who doesn't want to sacrifice my humanity and sensitivity to be a perfect rationalist.

Interestingly enough, one of her earliest acolytes, Nathaniel Branden, also went on to have a falling-out with Rand, and wrote this surprisingly candid and refreshingly humanistic article which explains, more deftly than I can, what makes reading Ayn Rand a "bittersweet" experience, and how a lot of the Objectivist creed goes against not only human nature, but the very system of pure rationality which it set out to codify.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

Humorous to see that he completely AVOIDS all mention of exactly what caused the "break."

Long story short, while he was married to Barbara, Ayn was forcing him to have sex with her... and then he decided he wanted a little "nookie" on the side with someone ELSE (some young, cute secretary type). Rand was perfectly OK with cheating on her husband, and with Nataniel cheating on his wife (and when either of them complained they were simply overruled and told to shut up) -- but she blew her stack as soon as she found her new "boy-toy" was shacking up with someone else as well.

Sorta like a sick soap-opera.

[WRellim]

Well then they coulda named him Remington Rand, for Pete's sake. :D

That *is* where she (Ayn Rand -- orginally Alice Rosenbaum) got her new "self-anointed" nom de plume (which she later made official) -- she plucked it off her typewriter.

Personally, I always though that she would have gotten more mileage out of Ayn Remington... much more macho.

:D

[Theocrat]

Ayn Rand and her followers seem more cult-like the more I read about them. Would you agree that they are a cult?

Yes. For them, selfishness is salvation. :)

[Truth Warrior]

That *is* where she (Ayn Rand -- orginally Alice Rosenbaum) got her new "self-anointed" nom de plume (which she later made official) -- she plucked it off her typewriter.

Personally, I always though that she would have gotten more mileage out of Ayn Remington... much more macho.

:D
Ayn Remington Colt Winchester Browning. :D I like it. ;)

[BuddyRey]

As an Objectivist, I quite agree with everything you just said.

Ayn Rand isn't even my favorite novelist. Robert Heinlein takes the cake, for me. His characters are incredibly relatable, human, faulted, yet heroic. Plus, science fiction is just my genre :)

While I consider Rand a great synthesizer and original mind of the unparalleled variety, Nathaniel Branden went on to prove himself perhaps an even greater philosopher than she was.... although he started out as a droning carbon copy.

Would you believe that I also love sci-fi, yet I've never read any Robert Heinlein? I keep hearing good things about him from freedom-lovers, but I read somewhere that his novel Starship Troopers was supposed to be a thinly-veiled endorsement of fascism, so it kind of scared me away. I'm definitely curious though, as he seems to have a huge libertarian fanbase.

[Truth Warrior]

Robert LeFevre's movement was a basis for Robert A. Heinlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein)'s book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress). LeFevre was the basis for the character Professor Bernardo de la Paz, organizer of the Lunar revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre#In_popular_culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre#In_popular_culture)

[Zippyjuan]

I saw the headline for this thread and though you were talking about this guy, Randy of the Redwoods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78BFfBPvvQ0

[heavenlyboy34]

I saw the headline for this thread and though you were talking about this guy, Randy of the Redwoods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78BFfBPvvQ0

Ahhh...the days when Mtv actually played music...lol! ;)