Is Ayn Rand Relevant Today?

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Is Rand Relevant? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D55MdSm00qA)

[Theocrat]

We had free-market capitalism in our nation way before Ayn Rand came on the scene. We don't need her "gospel of selfishness" to get us back to that economic system which brings prosperity rather than poverty. We need to get back to asking the question, "Who owns this world and all the things therein?" Only when we begin meditating and finding the answer to that question will we have regained the foundation for where things such as self-government, property rights, and respect for the rule of law come from, and those things are essential to a successful system of capitalism. Rand's ideas only shifted the focus from God's blessings to mankind through righteousness and charity to a man-centered philosophy of pure and total selfish gain which, ironically, is how capitalism was exploited in the first place.

[Kraig]

We had free-market capitalism in our nation way before Ayn Rand came on the scene. We don't need her "gospel of selfishness" to get us back to that economic system which brings prosperity rather than poverty. We need to get back to asking the question, "Who owns this world and all the things therein?" Only when we begin meditating and finding the answer to that question will we have regained the foundation for where things such as self-government, property rights, and respect for the rule of law come from, and those things are essential to a successful system of capitalism. Rand's ideas only shifted the focus from God's blessings to mankind through righteousness and charity to a man-centered philosophy of pure and total selfish gain which, ironically, is how capitalism was exploited in the first place.

I think you should just stick to calling her an evil bitch, it's much more direct.

[Theocrat]

I think you should just stick to calling her an evil bitch, it's much more direct.

I was told by a Moderator that such a comment could incite a flame war, so I've refrained from calling her that (even though it's true).

[Kraig]

I was told by a Moderator that such a comment could incite a flame war, so I've refrained from calling her that (even though it's true).

lmao, an atheist with a bit of influence around here is just upsetting for you, I would think...

[Theocrat]

lmao, an atheist with a bit of influence around here is just upsetting for you, I would think...

Not really, because most of her economic ideas are borrowed from Christian capital (mind the pun), mingled with her own (sinful) philosophy of human nature and behavior. That is the case with most "atheists," though.

[Kraig]

Not really, because most of her economic ideas are borrowed from Christian capital (mind the pun), mingled with her own (sinful) philosophy of human nature and behavior. That is the case with most "atheists," though.

What did she borrow from christian capitol? What are you even referring to when you talk about christian capitol?

[GBurr]

Ayn Rand is very relevant. Her economic philosophy is very good and her novels are great.
However, I do at times question whether or not Rand even had a soul. Some of her beliefs are really cold. She leaves little room for grace or charity which can really cast a bad image on her. I don't recommend Ayn Rand to people unless I know they are secure in their liberty minded beliefs. Many people read Ayn Rand and the cold character immediately turns them away.

[Icymudpuppy]

I've been called cold.

[Theocrat]

What did she borrow from christian capitol? What are you even referring to when you talk about christian capitol?

As an "atheist," Rand has no objective basis to account for capitalism as a sound conceptual apparatus within economics because economics is not made of matter. Yet, her worldview insists that only material things which are experienced by empirical methods can be true. She has to step outside her worldview of materialism and borrow from the Christian worldview, where immaterial concepts and entities can exist (such as God), to even make sense of capitalism in her philosophy.

Besides, better humanistic economists than Rand have already admitted that Biblical Christianity (particularly Calvinistic thought) paved the way for the success of capitalism in the world. One such economist was Max Weber, and he wrote a treatise about that entitled, The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_capitalism).

[ClayTrainor]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is far more moral than Christian philosophy, imo, but i'm no atheist.


I think if a lot more people worried about themselves rather than what everyone else is doing, this world would have a lot less evil in it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is far more moral than Christian philosophy, imo, but i'm no atheist.


I think if a lot more people worried about themselves rather than what everyone else is doing, this world would have a lot less evil in it.

IMHO, they're about equal. In practice, however, Objectivists have (so far) done less harm than CINOs(Christian In Name Only-these are the war-monger/Statist type of "Christian" who usually get into politics...viz a viz McShame, etc.). The best Christians, IMHO, avoid politics altogether and live as examples of Yeshua's philosophy (they also avoid prosthletizing :)).

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)Biblical Anarchism :cool::D
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)

[Theocrat]

IMHO, they're about equal. In practice, however, Objectivists have (so far) done less harm than CINOs(Christian In Name Only-these are the war-monger/Statist type of "Christian" who usually get into politics...viz a viz McShame, etc.). The best Christians, IMHO, avoid politics altogether and live as examples of Yeshua's philosophy (they also avoid prosthletizing :)).

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)Biblical Anarchism :cool::D
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)

"Biblical Anarchism" is an oxymoron, similar to "Libertarian Socialism." After all, how many times did Jesus Christ, Who is King of kings and Lord of lords, refer to "My Kingdom" in the Bible? I guess you've forgotten about Romans 13, as well.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Biblical Anarchism" is an oxymoron, similar to "Libertarian Socialism." After all, how many times did Jesus Christ, Who is King of kings and Lord of lords, refer to "My Kingdom" in the Bible? I guess you've forgotten about Romans 13, as well.

I haven't forgotten. I just disagree with your interpretation. You are a Statist Christian, and you have a right to that opinion of course, but I doubt Yeshua would agree with you.

I like Chuck Baldwin's interpretation of Romans 13 better (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html)-and the Christian Anarchists' even better than that. ;)

[Kraig]

As an "atheist," Rand has no objective basis to account for capitalism as a sound conceptual apparatus within economics because economics is not made of matter. Yet, her worldview insists that only material things which are experienced by empirical methods can be true. She has to step outside her worldview of materialism and borrow from the Christian worldview, where immaterial concepts and entities can exist (such as God), to even make sense of capitalism in her philosophy.

Besides, better humanistic economists than Rand have already admitted that Biblical Christianity (particularly Calvinistic thought) paved the way for the success of capitalism in the world. One such economist was Max Weber, and he wrote a treatise about that entitled, The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_capitalism).

No, she spent the majority of her time defining her morals and why they matter for an "atheist". She spent far more time on this than capitalism or economics, and she used her own described morals as a basis for her support for capitalism. She is really quite weak on both economics and politics, I don't think she even considered herself an economist at all. On the other hand her writings on morals are the best of her work, she defined why an atheist should be moral and what those morals would be very clearly. I really question that you have read much of Rand at all, let alone understood it.

I ask you what she borrowed and you replied basically saying once again that she borrowed. Why don't you quote something she actually wrote and show how it originated with Christianity.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, she spend the majority of her time defining her morals and why they matter for an "atheist". She spent far more time on this than capitalism or economics, and she used her own described morals as a basis for her support for capitalism. She is really quite weak on both economics and politics, I don't think she even considered herself an economist at all. On the other hand her writings on morals are the best of her work, she defined why an atheist should be moral and what those morals would be very clearly. I really question that you have read much of Rand at all, let alone understood it.

I ask you what she borrowed and you replied basically saying once again that she borrowed. Why don't you quote something she actually wrote and show how it originated with Christianity.

Methinks Theo's just havin fun teasing you. ;)

[Kraig]

Methinks Theo's just havin fun teasing you. ;)

How so? He certainly seems to believe what he is saying. I don't really care that much but it is fun to try and get him to back up what he is saying. Like I said earlier, just calling her an "evil bitch" is much more towards the point of the argument because I think it is just something personal for him.

[Kludge]

Different appeals for different people. As long as they're directing people to our common goal without too many "personal agendas", I consider them an asset.

Rand was the first person I looked to when I was introduced to libertarianism by Wikipedia and an "in-passing" reference to libertarians by The Stand-Up Economist.

I'm a bit embarrassed that she's attached to libertarianism now (she really shot her legacy and philosophy in the foot with her personal life), but she's introduced some great people to libertarianism with well-explained logical appeals (and continues to do so today). It's terribly unfortunate that Rand's writings had so much hate for those she considered inferior to herself.

I wish we'd focus on "Anthem" and "We The Living" (the latter is a bit irrelevant now, I suppose) more than her later works. "Anthem" is so short and to-the-point...

[Kraig]

Rand was the first person I looked to when I was introduced to libertarianism by Wikipedia and an "in-passing" reference to libertarians by The Stand-Up Economist.

I'm a bit embarrassed that she's attached to libertarianism now (she really shot her legacy and philosophy in the foot with her personal life), but she's introduced some great people to libertarianism with well-explained logical appeals (and continues to do so today). It's terribly unfortunate that Rand's writings had so much hate for those she considered inferior to herself.

Yet how many times have people talked about founding fathers who owned slaves and others are willing to just brush that under the rug?

I don't think her writings have much hate for those she considered inferior, I think she directed that hate towards people willing to steal and use government violence to get it. I can certainly relate to that, it makes me furious sometimes.

[Kludge]

Yet how many times have people talked about founding fathers who owned slaves and others are willing to just brush that under the rug?

I don't think her writings have much hate for those she considered inferior, I think she directed that hate towards people willing to steal and use government violence to get it. I can certainly relate to that, it makes me furious sometimes.

Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm very critical of the Founders (on this forum, especially), far more than I'm critical of Rand.

Mocking voluntary altruism throughout "The Fountainhead" (it didn't happen so much in "Atlas Shrugged") was foolish and stains libertarianism with a belief that libertarians are even colder and more heartless than socialists' perception of conservatives.

[Kraig]

Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm very critical of the Founders (on this forum, especially), far more than I'm critical of Rand.

Mocking voluntary altruism throughout "The Fountainhead" (it didn't happen so much in "Atlas Shrugged") was foolish and stains libertarianism with a belief that libertarians are even colder and more heartless than socialists' perception of conservatives.

Well I certainly agree that Atlas Shrugged is superior for that and other reasons.

[heavenlyboy34]

How so? He certainly seems to believe what he is saying. I don't really care that much but it is fun to try and get him to back up what he is saying. Like I said earlier, just calling her an "evil bitch" is much more towards the point of the argument because I think it is just something personal for him.

Theo is especially fond of fallacies, and likes to trot them out to tease people that he perceives as "opponents". (as RP would say, "foolishness masquerading as logic") It's kinda funny when you get used to the poor logic of it. :)

[Dreamofunity]

The guy's voice in the video annoyings the hell out of me.

[sailor]

Ayn Rand to me is like a reverse Bolshevik. The words are different, but that bullheaded, self-righteous, extremely judgamental fanaticism ready to stomp on everything in its path is right there, as authenthic as in any Bolshevik.

The only thing I like about her is that she spoke with an Eastern European accent. But even that is a sign of her bullheadedness and self-absorbtion. She lived in America for God knows how long and it barely made a dent in her accent, right until the end she sounded as if she just stepped off a boat. Now there is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is an illustration, it takes a special kind of person to whom not even half a century can begin to make a mark in their speech.

[Objectivist]

We had free-market capitalism in our nation way before Ayn Rand came on the scene. We don't need her "gospel of selfishness" to get us back to that economic system which brings prosperity rather than poverty. We need to get back to asking the question, "Who owns this world and all the things therein?" Only when we begin meditating and finding the answer to that question will we have regained the foundation for where things such as self-government, property rights, and respect for the rule of law come from, and those things are essential to a successful system of capitalism. Rand's ideas only shifted the focus from God's blessings to mankind through righteousness and charity to a man-centered philosophy of pure and total selfish gain which, ironically, is how capitalism was exploited in the first place.

It's that selfishness of person that created the economic power we had.

On a side note I gave $200.00 towards a bicycle to replace one stolen from a partially handicapped man today. I guess I'm selfish in my own way, then it was my freedom to help where I saw the need.

[Objectivist]

I was told by a Moderator that such a comment could incite a flame war, so I've refrained from calling her that (even though it's true).

No basis for that comment.

[DeadheadForPaul]

While Rand certainly brought a number of people into the libertarian fold, I believe her views are detrimental to the freedom movement.

She is the reason that outsiders view libertarians as 'cold'. Many have turned Objectivism into a religion. This Randian cult does not represent all libertarians

[Objectivist]

Ayn Rand is very relevant. Her economic philosophy is very good and her novels are great.
However, I do at times question whether or not Rand even had a soul. Some of her beliefs are really cold. She leaves little room for grace or charity which can really cast a bad image on her. I don't recommend Ayn Rand to people unless I know they are secure in their liberty minded beliefs. Many people read Ayn Rand and the cold character immediately turns them away.

Her position on charity is one of you choosing to be charitable, not you being forced into doing it against your will.

When I was a Lifeguard I didn't as much do it for the victim, as I did for myself. It was a personal challenge to accomplish the task at hand. Reality is I despised many of the people who I had to rescue for their ineptitude and stupidity, it was they who put their life in danger and therefor put other people around them at risk. I relished in the task of completing the job successfully even though the people being saved should have never entered the water for it was they lacking in skills, and common sense. Then it was my selfishness that saved them from themselves.

[Objectivist]

"Biblical Anarchism" is an oxymoron, similar to "Libertarian Socialism." After all, how many times did Jesus Christ, Who is King of kings and Lord of lords, refer to "My Kingdom" in the Bible? I guess you've forgotten about Romans 13, as well.

Quotes from a King who lived in the 17th century, well that's a way to define ones belief system.

So based on Roman 13 you shouldn't even be voting for the governing authority. Who'd you vote for>

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Like I said, written by a King in the 17th century.

[Objectivist]

While Rand certainly brought a number of people into the libertarian fold, I believe her views are detrimental to the freedom movement.

She is the reason that outsiders view libertarians as 'cold'. Many have turned Objectivism into a religion. This Randian cult does not represent all libertarians

Now that is an oxymoron.... turning Objectivism into a religion. {shakes head}

[Objectivist]

Different appeals for different people. As long as they're directing people to our common goal without too many "personal agendas", I consider them an asset.

Rand was the first person I looked to when I was introduced to libertarianism by Wikipedia and an "in-passing" reference to libertarians by The Stand-Up Economist.

I'm a bit embarrassed that she's attached to libertarianism now (she really shot her legacy and philosophy in the foot with her personal life), but she's introduced some great people to libertarianism with well-explained logical appeals (and continues to do so today). It's terribly unfortunate that Rand's writings had so much hate for those she considered inferior to herself.

I wish we'd focus on "Anthem" and "We The Living" (the latter is a bit irrelevant now, I suppose) more than her later works. "Anthem" is so short and to-the-point...

Interesting perspective from one who quotes Nietzsche is his Av.

I guess when I point out the facts about people different than myself it could be called hate by those very people, then that's their weakness.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Now that is an oxymoron.... turning Objectivism into a religion. {shakes head}

Is it? The cult of Ayn Rand has its holy books, its sacred beliefs, its central figure of worship and believes that all else are mere infidels

[Kludge]

Interesting perspective from one who quotes Nietzsche is his Av.

I guess when I point out the facts about people different than myself it could be called hate by those very people, then that's their weakness.

I sympathize with Rand, but between her disgust toward lesbians and hate for Robin Hood (and socialists like him), it'd be difficult to say Rand was at all loving.

Nietzsche was hardly loving, but he wasn't hateful. I understand attacking ideology, but Rand would attack people, instead, and has notoriety for hating people over petty reasons. Maybe it was the drugs...? :p

[Objectivist]

Is it? The cult of Ayn Rand has its holy books, its sacred beliefs, its central figure of worship and believes that all else are mere infidels

In her own words she said she wasn't a cult. I think those that demonize her came up with that idea, it works on weak minded people.

[Objectivist]

I sympathize with Rand, but between her disgust toward lesbians and hate for Robin Hood (and socialists like him), it'd be difficult to say Rand was at all loving.

Nietzsche was hardly loving, but he wasn't hateful. I understand attacking ideology, but Rand would attack people, instead, and has notoriety for hating people over petty reasons. Maybe it was the drugs...? :p

How'd he get syphilis if he wasn't loving?:rolleyes:

[Kludge]

How'd he get syphilis if he wasn't loving?:rolleyes:

Touché.

But really, Nietzsche was a lonely bastard. I suspect he rented hookers.

[Objectivist]

Touché.

But really, Nietzsche was a lonely bastard. I suspect he rented hookers.

He had a relationship with a whore. Poor Fred 1844-1900.

[DeadheadForPaul]

In her own words she said she wasn't a cult. I think those that demonize her came up with that idea, it works on weak minded people.

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. ... This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." - Nathaniel Branden, associate of Ayn Rand and former promoter of Objectivism.

Why would the leader of a cult ever admit it was a cult? When has that ever happened in human history?

I also don't appreciate your suggestion that I am weak-minded for viewing her as the leader of a cult. It sounds like a desperate attempt of someone who knows that Rand's personality, actions, and philosophy are eccentric, radical, heartless, and cult-like.

[Objectivist]

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. ... This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." - Nathaniel Branden, associate of Ayn Rand and former promoter of Objectivism.

Why would the leader of a cult ever admit it was a cult? When has that ever happened in human history?

I also don't appreciate your suggestion that I am weak-minded for viewing her as the leader of a cult. It sounds like a desperate attempt of someone who knows that Rand's personality, actions, and philosophy are eccentric, radical, heartless, and cult-like.


From my perspective I thought it odd that after being on the planet for 45 years, that aI finally found someone that thought like me. I happened across her video interviews while perusing YouTube and then went out and found Virtue of Selfishness. I told my mother about her and she too has a copy or VoS. Here all this time we thought how really screwed up humans are and she makes sense to me, and my mother tends to think along the same track. SO I must be the leader of a cult since I held the same ideals even before I knew who Ayn Rand was. Imagine that I'm a cult leader, or maybe my mother is?

[torchbearer]

"Biblical Anarchism" is an oxymoron, similar to "Libertarian Socialism." After all, how many times did Jesus Christ, Who is King of kings and Lord of lords, refer to "My Kingdom" in the Bible? I guess you've forgotten about Romans 13, as well.

God is your only ruler/lord. Submit to any other lord, and you are serving two masters.

[RCA]

Ayn Rand is very relevant. Her economic philosophy is very good and her novels are great.
However, I do at times question whether or not Rand even had a soul. Some of her beliefs are really cold. She leaves little room for grace or charity which can really cast a bad image on her. I don't recommend Ayn Rand to people unless I know they are secure in their liberty minded beliefs. Many people read Ayn Rand and the cold character immediately turns them away.

This is one of the common misconceptions about Ayn Rand and charity, possibly due to her detractors. She railed against obligatory charity or charity through guilt. Charity that you want to do and makes you happy is fine, in the same sense that paying for a movie or buying a soda is fine.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7

Also, whether or not you agree with her religious beliefs, her economic views are top notch.

[Objectivist]

This is one of the common misconceptions about Ayn Rand and charity, possibly due to her detractors. She railed against obligatory charity or charity through guilt. Charity that you want to do and makes you happy is fine, in the same sense that paying for a movie or buying a soda is fine.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7

Also, whether or not you agree with her religious beliefs, her economic views are top notch.

Very nice.

[BeFranklin]

Very nice.

She was quite a bit more degrading of private charity than that. But I'll leave this to the end of the summer when I can go through her works again. She was a nut on the subject.

Obligatory charity is an oxymoron. If you meant government programs, yes. But the beauty that is Ayn Rand is she attacked people for doing what
they want with their own moeny. If you aren't being selfish with it, you aren't being rational. You can always find more to do with something
yourself then to give it to someone else.

[BeFranklin]

I sympathize with Rand, but between her disgust toward lesbians and hate for Robin Hood (and socialists like him), it'd be difficult to say Rand was at all loving.

Oh yes. I forgot that. Ayn Rand attacked Robin Hood, not based on what the actual story was, but a strawman she created, which she then knocked down :rolleyes:

She often did that. No one touches my Robin Hood though.

FYI: Ironically I was watching Robin Hood with Errol Flynn the other night. (The best movie version. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029843/)
Favorite line after a long discussion of what Prince John was plotting and what Robin Hood was going to do to fight it:

Why you speak treason! Robin Hood: Fluently

[BeFranklin]

From my perspective I thought it odd that after being on the planet for 45 years, that aI finally found someone that thought like me. I happened across her video interviews while perusing YouTube and then went out and found Virtue of Selfishness. I told my mother about her and she too has a copy or VoS. Here all this time we thought how really screwed up humans are and she makes sense to me, and my mother tends to think along the same track. SO I must be the leader of a cult since I held the same ideals even before I knew who Ayn Rand was. Imagine that I'm a cult leader, or maybe my mother is?

It sounds like you haven't read as much of her as I have. I've read everything, including some of the less read books like anthem, romantic manifesto, and the old objectivist newsletters. Like Nietzsche, interesting doesn't mean good.

[Objectivist]

It sounds like you haven't read as much of her as I have. I've read everything, including some of the less read books like anthem, romantic manifesto, and the old objectivist newsletters. Like Nietzsche, interesting doesn't mean good.

It doesn't make any difference how much you may have read when comprehension seems to be your weak point.

[BeFranklin]

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. ... This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." - Nathaniel Branden, associate of Ayn Rand and former promoter of Objectivism.

Why would the leader of a cult ever admit it was a cult? When has that ever happened in human history?

I also don't appreciate your suggestion that I am weak-minded for viewing her as the leader of a cult. It sounds like a desperate attempt of someone who knows that Rand's personality, actions, and philosophy are eccentric, radical, heartless, and cult-like.

Don't get too mad at him. He hasn't read enough to understand these aren't just words, but accuratly describe the history.

Every time Ayn Rand had a falling out, ie rothbard, branden, etc etc, it was obvious. Rand even made people sign loyality oaths after branden.

[BeFranklin]

It doesn't make any difference how much you may have read when comprehension seems to be your weak point.

The true sign you have nothing to say is when your argument boils down to

You just don't understand :rolleyes:

I'll ask directly. How much of Ayn Rand have you read? What about the history of Rand? What about her newsletters?

[BeFranklin]

Quotes from a King who lived in the 17th century, well that's a way to define ones belief system.
.

Your bible knowledge is very weak as I've said elsewhere. The bible (new testament) is a little less than two thousand years old.

[BeFranklin]

Yet how many times have people talked about founding fathers who owned slaves and others are willing to just brush that under the rug?


Maybe because its misleading and substantially untrue?

Alot of us don't have time to shoot down every piece of bullshit that is flung. That would be pointless.

[BeFranklin]

"Biblical Anarchism" is an oxymoron, similar to "Libertarian Socialism." After all, how many times did Jesus Christ, Who is King of kings and Lord of lords, refer to "My Kingdom" in the Bible? I guess you've forgotten about Romans 13, as well.

Exactly.

But more to the point, Jesus Christ is ruling on His Father's throne right now, so trying to co-opt something now being seen to be successful on these boards is foolishness.

God is our strength not worded argument. And in Jesus's name we pray, amen.

[Objectivist]

Your bible knowledge is very weak as I've said elsewhere. The bible (new testament) is a little less than two thousand years old.

You read how many languages? I figured you for an English speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible

[Objectivist]

Exactly.

But more to the point, Jesus Christ is ruling on His Father's throne right now, so trying to co-opt something now being seen to be successful on these boards is foolishness.

God is our strength not worded argument. And in Jesus's name we pray, amen.

How can I argue with insanity such as this.^^ You worship dead people and you think you have a greater understanding of reality than I? hahahaha Or Ayn Rand for that matter. YGTBFKM

[BeFranklin]

You read how many languages? I figured you for an English speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible

Literal translations don't make much difference, especially for something that simple.

http://bible.cc/revelation/17-14.htm

14 Bible versions, and Jesus Christ is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings in all of them.

[BeFranklin]

How can I argue with insanity such as this.^^ You worship dead people and you think you have a greater understanding of reality than I? hahahaha Or Ayn Rand for that matter. YGTBFKM

I worship someone that is alive. Jesus Christ is risen.

[Objectivist]

I worship someone that is alive. Jesus Christ is risen.

Like I said we should part ways before I do a psych profile on you. Where I live in the reality of here and now you are lost in the mystical voodoo world of the all powerful invisible people that grant special privileges to a select few.

Have your dead friend give me a phone call, he shouldn't have a problem finding my number.:rolleyes:

[Objectivist]

Do us both a favor, don't ever respond to my threads again, my posts either for that matter. I like this place and won't get banned over idiocy.

[idiom]

Man. I must have read a different Ayn Rand to everyone else.

Did you guys accidently pick up, like, censored or redacted copies or something?

[BeFranklin]

Do us both a favor, don't ever respond to my threads again, my posts either for that matter. I like this place and won't get banned over idiocy.

The thread was about Ayn Rand. Since I've read more of her than you have, used to like it when I was 17 (so I've thought about it A LOT longer than you have), actually had the original copies of the objectivist newsletter, I'd say the answer is

No. You don't like dealing with someone that actually knows the subject.

You just picked up Ayn Rand, know almost nothing about her, and want to be an expert. Well, you have one thing in common with Ayn Rand!

[Objectivist]

Man. I must have read a different Ayn Rand to everyone else.

Did you guys accidently pick up, like, censored or redacted copies or something?

Explain yourself seeing that I put the Christian on ignore.

[BeFranklin]

Like I said we should part ways before I do a psych profile on you. Where I live in the reality of here and now you are lost in the mystical voodoo world of the all powerful invisible people that grant special privileges to a select few.

Have your dead friend give me a phone call, he shouldn't have a problem finding my number.:rolleyes:

Even from a rational perspective, your conscience would be bothering you for acting like a fool by turning a discussion into namecalling. I notice you are *ignoring* anything said about your idol. You'd rather change the subject. Here is your great chance.

Prove to us that Ayn Rand said something new! Even Thomas Jefferson didn't like how philosophies built around selfishness worked.

[BeFranklin]

Explain yourself seeing that I put the Christian on ignore.

Couldn't handle talking to someone that used to like Rand and knows the problems.
:o

[BeFranklin]

Do us both a favor, don't ever respond to my threads again, my posts either for that matter. I like this place and won't get banned over idiocy.

The wounded ex-girlfriend sound.

But this is a philosophical thread :eek:

FYI - Ayn Rand taught her followers to do that. It's cultish. And this type of response is exactly like many others taught by Rand.
Not at all like a discussion as a means to search for truth.

Murray Rothbard on Ayn Rand

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

Satirical Play
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

And of course, there is all the other former followers rejected by Rand too. There is a lot of stuff like this you can look at from people that knew her.

[BeFranklin]

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. ... This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path."
- Nathaniel Branden, associate of Ayn Rand and former promoter of Objectivism.


Just want to bump up that quote as another example since the original poster of this thread has fled the field.

[Objectivist]

I must be proven correct again. I did just post that I put the christian on my ignore list and asked that he not respond to any of my posts or threads, but I just bet I was right about saying he had a reading comprehension problem. Then I'll never know as I put him on my IGNORE LIST.

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM)

[BeFranklin]

Ayn Rand has done just enough harm in the world that I'm going to ignore the childish taunting of one of her fans, and start faq file on her for the thread. This will keep on expanding this as time goes on since there is a lot out there.

Ayn Rand - Cult Problems
-----------------------------------

Ayn Rand had a lot of problems as a cult movement grew up around her which she directed. Many of her biggest followers reported these problems after their break with her, including Rothbard, well known *real* economist, and Branden, her number two person in her organization.

Murray Rothbard

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

Satirical Play
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

Nathaniel Branden
Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. ... This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.
- Nathaniel Branden, associate of Ayn Rand and former promoter of Objectivism.

To be continued.

[BeFranklin]

I must be proven correct again. I did just post that I put the christian on my ignore list and asked that he not respond to any of my posts or threads, but I just bet I was right about saying he had a reading comprehension problem. Then I'll never know as I put him on my IGNORE LIST.

Yes. "I can't hear you. I can't I can't I can't"

The liberty movement needs to grow up and realize we're wasting our time on a bunch of children like this. I'm not playing games anymore nor have time for it. We're in great danger, and these fools will be doing this until the end.

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Disclaimer for the Bible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLEsj_f67DU)

[BeFranklin]

I'm starting a faq file on Ayn Rand for the thread. This will keep on expanding as time goes on since there is a lot out there.

Ayn Rand - Cult Problems

Ayn Rand had a lot of problems as a cult movement grew up around her which she directed. Many of her biggest followers reported these problems after their break with her, including Rothbard, a well known *real* economist, and Branden, her number two person in her organization.

Murray Rothbard

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

Satirical Play
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

Nathaniel Branden
Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.
- Nathaniel Branden, associate of Ayn Rand and former promoter of Objectivism.
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html



Various assorted (and doubtless to be long) list of objections

Some Problems with Ayn Rand's Derivation of Ought from Is
David Friendman
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html

Article (as many do) list various fallacies of Ayn Rand. ie.

According to Rand, values are things you act to get and keep; in that sense cash obtained by fraud is obviously a value for some people. If we interpret "value" in this passage as meaning "value for your life," hence "value of the sort Rand is arguing you should seek," it is still puzzling. Money obtained by fraud will pay for just as much food or medical service as money obtained honestly.

The rest of the quoted passage is a highly colored exposition of a true point--that if you defraud people, you have to worry about being detected. The problem is that Rand is drawing an absolute conclusion that her argument does not justify. Different opportunities to defraud people have different risks of detection, and victims vary in their ability to retaliate against fraud if they detect it. So the implication of the argument is not that one should always be honest, but that one should be prudent in one's dishonesty--which is not, of course, the result Rand wants.

Personal Life

Rand's philosophy easily leads to sophistry and self-justification. See example from David Friedman above and compare it to her life - i.e. decried hedonism and had adulterous affairs (etc).

http://www.answers.com/topic/ayn-rand

In 1950, Rand developed a close friendship with a young Canadian-born couple, Barbara Weidman and Nathaniel Blumenthal, who were students at UCLA. Blumenthal, who later changed his name to Branden, wrote to Rand expressing his interest in her philosophy. Rand became their mentor. She eventually entered into an adulterous liaison with Blumenthal, despite a 26-year age difference. The relationship lasted over 13 years. Rand is said to have proposed the affair to Branden's wife and her husband, then proceeded to open the topic for discussion. She is said to have rationalized the proposed affair, proving it to be reasonable according to the tenets of Objectivism and claiming that it would not threaten either marriage. Apparently that was true for Rand, who remained married to O'Connor for 50 years, until his death in 1979. The same can not be said of the Brandens, who later divorced. Details of the split between Branden and Rand are sketchy. However, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, a think-tank originally formed to promote Rand's philosophy, closed in 1968, shortly after the end of their relationship.

[BeFranklin]

Bump for faq file :)

[AutoDas]

What harm has Ayn Rand's 'cult' ever done? Altruism is discouraged so what have the Objectivists ever done to you?

[BeFranklin]

What harm has Ayn Rand's 'cult' ever done? Altruism is discouraged so what have the Objectivists ever done to you?

I find it odd that the most frequent argument I find on this thread is not to examine the actual philosophy and life of Rand too closely, like it can't stand the light of day.

Its interesting when you abandon something that works for something that doesn't, and you still don't look at what objectively does or doesn't work.

"ideas have consequences".

I'm looking at the sorry state of some things planted 30-40 years ago right now.

[AutoDas]

I find it odd that the most frequent argument I find on this thread is not to examine the actual philosophy and life of Rand too closely, like it can't stand the light of day.

Its interesting when you abandon something that works for something that doesn't, and you still don't look at what objectively does or doesn't work.

"ideas have consequences".

I'm looking at the sorry state of some things planted 30-40 years ago right now.

And it's interesting how you can edit your posts where you no longer mention Ayn Rand causing harm :rolleyes:

[BeFranklin]

And it's interesting how you can edit your posts where you no longer mention Ayn Rand causing harm :rolleyes:

I elaborated in the post right above this :rolleyes:

That is my FAQ file. Please allow the editor to try to make it better. Geezo.

[BeFranklin]

I'm starting a faq file on Ayn Rand for the thread. This will keep on expanding as time goes on since there is a lot out there.

Ayn Rand - Cult Problems

Ayn Rand had a lot of problems as a cult movement grew up around her which she directed. Many of her biggest followers reported these problems after their break with her, including Rothbard, a well known *real* economist, and Branden, her number two person in the organization.

Murray Rothbard

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

Satirical Play
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

Nathaniel Branden

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.
- Nathaniel Branden, associate of Ayn Rand and former promoter of Objectivism.
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html





Various assorted list of objections


Some Problems with Ayn Rand's Derivation of Ought from Is
David Friendman
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html

Article (as many do) list various fallacies of Ayn Rand. ie.

According to Rand, values are things you act to get and keep; in that sense cash obtained by fraud is obviously a value for some people. If we interpret "value" in this passage as meaning "value for your life," hence "value of the sort Rand is arguing you should seek," it is still puzzling. Money obtained by fraud will pay for just as much food or medical service as money obtained honestly.

The rest of the quoted passage is a highly colored exposition of a true point--that if you defraud people, you have to worry about being detected. The problem is that Rand is drawing an absolute conclusion that her argument does not justify. Different opportunities to defraud people have different risks of detection, and victims vary in their ability to retaliate against fraud if they detect it. So the implication of the argument is not that one should always be honest, but that one should be prudent in one's dishonesty--which is not, of course, the result Rand wants.




Personal Life

Rand's philosophy easily leads to sophistry and self-justification. See example from David Friedman above and compare it to her life - i.e. decried hedonism and had adulterous affairs (etc).

http://www.answers.com/topic/ayn-rand


In 1950, Rand developed a close friendship with a young Canadian-born couple, Barbara Weidman and Nathaniel Blumenthal, who were students at UCLA. Blumenthal, who later changed his name to Branden, wrote to Rand expressing his interest in her philosophy. Rand became their mentor. She eventually entered into an adulterous liaison with Blumenthal, despite a 26-year age difference. The relationship lasted over 13 years. Rand is said to have proposed the affair to Branden's wife and her husband, then proceeded to open the topic for discussion. She is said to have rationalized the proposed affair, proving it to be reasonable according to the tenets of Objectivism and claiming that it would not threaten either marriage. Apparently that was true for Rand, who remained married to O'Connor for 50 years, until his death in 1979. The same can not be said of the Brandens, who later divorced. Details of the split between Branden and Rand are sketchy. However, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, a think-tank originally formed to promote Rand's philosophy, closed in 1968, shortly after the end of their relationship.


Oddities

1) Alan Greenspan

Alan Greenspan was a member of Ayn Rand's inner circle, and Rand included chapters by him in her book "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal".
It may surprise more than a few gold devotees to learn they have an ideological friend in none other than Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan. Starting in the 1950s, in fact, Greenspan was a stalwart member of Ayn Rand's intellectual inner circle. A self-designated "objectivist", Rand preached a strongly libertarian view, applying it to politics and economics, as well as to religion and popular culture. Under her influence, Greenspan wrote for the first issue of what was to become the widely-circulated Objectivist Newsletter. When Gerald Ford appointed him to the Council of Economic Advisors, Greenspan invited Rand to his swearing-in ceremony. He even attended her funeral in 1982.
(link includes copy of Gold and Economic Freedom)
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

Wait, Alan Greenspan? Wouldn't he be one of the prime suspects for causing our current crisis? In charge of the central producer of phoney money? Wouldn't that make him a hypocrite and liar extraordinaire? A member of Rand's inner elite?

Compare this FYI to Rothbard's statement:
But the Randians did not understand the concept of "allies": in their universe, you either agreed with all of their positions, or else you were consigned to the Outer Darkness. (Curiously, on the level of macro-politics, the Randians were grossly opportunistic.)

And compare also to this for a different view:
And the Randian movement was strictly hierarchical. At the top of the pyramid, of course, was Rand herself, the Ultimate Decider of all questions. Branden, her designated "intellectual heir," and the St. Paul of the movement, was Number 2. Third in rank was the top circle, the original disciples, those who had been converted before the publication of Atlas. Since they were converted by reading her previous novel, The Fountainhead, which had been published 1943, the top circle was designated in the movement as "the class of '43." But there was an unofficial designation that was far more revealing: "the senior collective." On the surface, this phrase was supposed to "underscore" the high individuality of each of the Randian members; in reality, however, there was an irony within the irony, since the Randian movement was indeed a "collective" in any genuine meaning of the term. Strengthening the ties within the senior collective was the fact that each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden. There was, for example, Nathan’s sister Elaine Kalberman; his brother-in-law, Harry Kalberman; his first cousin, Dr. Allan Blumenthal, who assumed the mantle of leading Objectivist Psychotherapist after Branden’s expulsion; Barbara’s first cousin, Leonard Piekoff; and Joan Mitchell, wife of Allan Blumenthal. Alan Greenspan’s familial relation was more tenuous, being the former husband of Joan Mitchell. The only non-relative in the class of '43 was Mary Ann Rukovina, who made the top rank after being the college roommate of Joan Mitchell.

Greenspan works in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. (ignoring others in The Objectivist and elswhere)


Antitrust, Alan Greenspan
Gold and Economic Freedom, Alan Greenspan
The Assault on Integrity, Alan Greenspan




Oddities in Fiction Works

Robin Hood
This is a place stub until I retrieve books. Ayn Rand didn't understand Robin Hood. (But this may be because she's from Russia).

This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness...
Atlas Shrugged

Capitalism, the unknown ideal‎ - Page 162
In Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar Danneskjold denounced Robin Hood as the particular
image of evil that he wanted to destroy in men's minds.

The Objectivist‎
edited by Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden Page 33
Do you remember the scene in Atlas Shrugged when Hank Rearden finally ... Ragnar Danneskjold denounced Robin Hood as the particular image of evil that he ...


Anthem
Anthem is an interesting short book of a dark future where the word "I" has been eliminated, and instead, words like "We" are used.

But it is interesting to compare it to the preamble of the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,

Which I suppose shows that anything can be carried too far.

Rape Scenes
The rape scenes in Rand's books (all over web, will insert later).







-----

CONT

[LibertyEagle]

Is it? The cult of Ayn Rand has its holy books, its sacred beliefs, its central figure of worship and believes that all else are mere infidels

Dude, look at your screen name. :p People could and have said the same thing about us.

[BeFranklin]

Dude, look at your screen name. :p People could and have said the same thing about us.

Yes, but it was her top followers that said it about her, not her enemies. I think you can rely on the fact that what they said went on, went on. And while Alan Greenspan never said anything bad about her that I know, look at the implication.

[idiom]

So, in all your years of study you learnt nothing from Ayn Rand?

[DeadheadForPaul]

How can I argue with insanity such as this.^^ You worship dead people and you think you have a greater understanding of reality than I? hahahaha Or Ayn Rand for that matter. YGTBFKM

You worship a dead person...Ayn Rand :D

[DeadheadForPaul]

Dude, look at your screen name. :p People could and have said the same thing about us.

Haha. Well, I *love* them. I don't *worship* them.

Though I certainly know some people who put the Dead before all else in life

[nickcoons]

So, in all your years of study you learnt nothing from Ayn Rand?

That was my first thought in reading the FAQ. Taking the idea of seeking one's values by fraud; anyone who's read Francisco's "money speech" knows that Rand doesn't advocate this.

Ayn Rand certainly had flaws, not only in her personal life but even in her interpretation of her own philosophy (i.e. animosity towards homosexuals as just one example). And many of her followers are dogmatic, not only agreeing with but defending her inconsistencies.

But this is not to reflect negatively on the philosophy itself. Nathaniel Branden agreed, as he stated such when he disassociated himself with the movement after "defaulting n Rand's trust" as he put it. He said, "A philosophy should not be judged by the behavior of its teachers."

The great thing about objective philosophy (or objective anything) is that it can be walked through from beginning to end with logic. It requires neither faith nor blind, dogmatic acceptance.

[Kraig]

Robin Hood
This is a place stub until I retrieve books. Ayn Rand didn't understand Robin Hood. (But this may be because she's from Russia).
[LIST]
This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness...


Wow, you are really showing how bad your comprehension is. In Atlas Shrugged she is pretty clear that Robin Hood needs to be retold, that it needs to get away from stealing from the rich (just because they're rich) and giving to the poor (just because they're poor). She wanted to get rid of demonizing people just because they are rich, and focus on those who are rich through theft, and demonize them. She wanted to to rethink Robin Hood, as stealing from the unearned rich, and giving it to those who have really earned it. This is exactly what she did with the Ragnar character, and the book explained it very clearly to me.

[torchbearer]

In the story of Robin Hood- I thought he was taking back the money the King stole from the people in the form of taxes.
If this is the case, Robin Hood was not a thief. The king was- Robin was getting people their own money back.

[Kraig]

In the story of Robin Hood- I thought he was taking back the money the King stole from the people in the form of taxes.
If this is the case, Robin Hood was not a thief. The king was- Robin was getting people their own money back.

Right and I believe she even talked about that in Atlas Shrugged and mentioned how that part of it has been forgotten as the story has been retold. Something along those lines, I'll try to find an exact quote from the book.

From Atlas Shrugged, I found this online so I haven't double checked it yet:

"It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor."

What rape scenes did she have besides the one in The Fountainhead?

[Objectivist]

You worship a dead person...Ayn Rand :D

I appreciate a dead persons work and writings. Then I stood next to Jerry during the filming of Touch of Grey and I really appreciated his work too.

I guess I have a list of people that I appreciate but none of them are my heroes, that title would be reserved for myself.