Ayn Rand [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

TCE

03-04-2010, 12:04 AM

Dude, Read Ayn Rand and then read and study Ron Paul and you will find them.

This is obviously a good idea.

However, if you don't want to read Ayn Rand, then just know the major ones are over religion and foreign policy. Ayn Rand viciously attacked and even mocked religion while Dr. Paul leans much more Christian. On the foreign policy front, someone once remarked that if Ayn Rand's foreign policy was in place, there would be no Middle East left as it would be bombed to death, I'm not sure if that is going too far, but it gets the point across.

Dr. Paul has publicly remarked that he respects Ayn Rand's ideas and if I remember correctly, he read either Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. He said he disagrees with her on religion, though, although that should be obvious.

Similarities:

Ayn Rand was pro-free market and favored capitalism over any kind of governmental regulations. She popularized the Broken Window Fallacy that stated the economy is not propelled by spending upon spending, especially government spending. She stated that government is easily corruptible and will often get involved with big businessmen to benefit them (Wesley Mouch).

7402

03-04-2010, 12:16 AM

if Ayn Rand's foreign policy was in place, there would be no Middle East left as it would be bombed to death, I'm not sure if that is going too far, but it gets the point across.

That is patently false. There is no such thing as "Objectivist foriegn policy" as such, and Ayn Rand was a straight up isolationist, opposed every war she lived through, and supported the George Washington-style of foreign policy. You can find her ideas in the essay "The Roots of War." Don't conflate her moral support for the right of Israelis to exist and to form the freest government in the Middle East as "bombing the Middle East to death."

Regarding the OP: Objectivism is a fully integrated system that covers all branches of philosophy, not just a political idea. Obviously as suggested if you want to compare and contrast it with libertarianism just go study it.

TCE

03-04-2010, 12:30 AM

That is patently false. There is no such thing as "Objectivist foriegn policy" as such, and Ayn Rand was a straight up isolationist, opposed every war she lived through, and supported the George Washington-style of foreign policy. You can find her ideas in the essay "The Roots of War." Don't conflate her moral support for the right of Israelis to exist and to form the freest government in the Middle East as "bombing the Middle East to death."

Regarding the OP: Objectivism is a fully integrated system that covers all branches of philosophy, not just a political idea. Obviously as suggested if you want to compare and contrast it with libertarianism just go study it.

At least the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, is an interventionist.

7402

03-04-2010, 12:39 AM

At least the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, is an interventionist.

1. Yaron Brook != Ayn Rand. You should edit your post then to clarify if you are talking about ARI or Rand because you said:

"if Ayn Rand's foreign policy was in place, there would be no Middle East left as it would be bombed to death"

which is a false statement.

Bruno

03-04-2010, 12:43 AM

Ayn Rand is a crazy lunatic, look at what her own organization has become.

She is a hypocrite who goes against her own objectivist principles.
YouTube - Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU)

deja vu

7402

03-04-2010, 12:44 AM

Ayn Rand is a crazy lunatic,
Ad hominem.

look at what her own organization has become.

It's not "her" organization. It was formed years after her death.

She is a hypocrite who goes against her own objectivist principles.

If that's your assertion, (that she's a hypocrite) you should really not post a video that totally disproves that suggestion. Her view is that you don't morally support tribalism over civilization, that is clearly in line with Objectivist principles.

7402

03-04-2010, 12:49 AM

You don't know what you're talking about.

Oh well that explains it.

Andrew-Austin

03-04-2010, 12:51 AM

If that's your assertion, (that she's a hypocrite) you should really not post a video that totally disproves that suggestion. Her view is that you don't morally support tribalism over civilization, that is clearly in line with Objectivist principles.

That is fine "we" don't have to support "tribalism". We also don't have to support Israel.

She just threw out a bunch of rhetoric weakly rationalizing which side we should take. "Them arabs are all murderous barbarians, Israel equals progress" is basically how she came off to me. You can't "objectively" meddle in foreign affairs because its a bad idea to begin with.

7402

03-04-2010, 12:58 AM

That is fine "we" don't have to support "tribalism". We also don't have to support Israel.

Shouldn't have to, no. Rand didn't favor government foreign aid, unless there was some sort of existential threat and some sort of lend-lease was required for national defense. Obviously not the case with Israel, they can take care of themselves, however, that doesn't mean you should refuse to render moral judgement on the situation, and as you can see, according to Rand, Israel was worth morally supporting.

__27__

03-04-2010, 01:08 AM

Rand had no problem with government, so long as she could be raped by ginger boys. On the scale of Spooner to Stalin, she's somewhere in the middle. Not completely for government, but not completely opposed to it.

It's a good entry point for those trying to break their mind free from the propagandists line, but she falls far short of being a true liberty scholar.

7402

03-04-2010, 01:15 AM

Rand had no problem with government, so long as she could be raped by ginger boys.

Really? Is that what suffices for scholarly argumentation for you?

Not completely for government, but not completely opposed to it.

It was a matter of scale, not a matter of size. She was for laissez-faire capitalism, under which the only purpose of government was the protection of individual rights, which in her opinion required police, courts, and national defense. You can say that puts her in the middle between Stalin and Spooner, but that would make you a liar.

__27__

03-04-2010, 01:19 AM

Really? Is that what suffices for scholarly argumentation for you?

Can you tell me a Rand fiction piece in which a female ISN'T raped by a ginger?

It was a matter of scale, not a matter of size. She was for laissez-faire capitalism, under which the only purpose of government was the protection of individual rights, which in her opinion required police, courts, and national defense. You can say that puts her in the middle between Stalin and Spooner, but that would make you a liar.

She supports government FORCE as a means to her own end. You can say that makes her for liberty, but that would make you a liar.

7402

03-04-2010, 01:26 AM

Can you tell me a Rand fiction piece in which a female ISN'T raped by a ginger?

All of them, except the Fountainhead. Come on now.

She supports government FORCE as a means to her own end. You can say that makes her for liberty, but that would make you a liar.

She supports government force. Not the initiation, but in retaliation against those who intitiate it, of course. Now I suppose you are going to make an argument for anarchism, but let's just cut it short and say, in regards the the topic of contrasting Rand with libertarianism (actually it was Rand with Ron Paul, in which case Paul also supports police, courts, and national defense), Randianism does not view a government monopoly on force to require the initiation of force, and anarchism does. Nevertheless of which you decide on, saying that puts her anywhere near Stalin is a meaningless smear.

Andrew-Austin

03-04-2010, 01:32 AM

She was for laissez-faire capitalism,

Don't forget she was also for a bit of mercantilism, a staunch advocate of enforcing monopoly privileges on ideas and innovations.

__27__

03-04-2010, 01:33 AM

All of them, except the Fountainhead. Come on now.

The undertones are everpresent, you can read her mind on this topic.

She supports government force. Not the initiation, but in retaliation against those who intitiate it, of course. Now I suppose you are going to make an argument for anarchism, but let's just cut it short and say, in regards the the topic of contrasting Rand with libertarianism (actually it was Rand with Ron Paul, in which case Paul also supports police, courts, and national defense), Randianism does not view a government monopoly on force to require the initiation of force, and anarchism does. Nevertheless of which you decide on, saying that puts her anywhere near Stalin is a meaningless smear.

I must have missed where I put her "anywhere near Stalin". If that was your inference on my statement, then you must also believe that I was putting her "somewhere near Spooner" as well. Clearly I was doing neither, as the statement was quite literal. On a scale of Spooner to Stalin, she's SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

7402

03-04-2010, 01:50 AM

Don't forget she was also for a bit of mercantilism, a staunch advocate of enforcing monopoly privileges on ideas and innovations.

She was for IP, yes, as many classical liberals support and has nothing to do with mercantilism. You'll find that she in no way supported a "monopoly privileges on ideas" but a right (not a privilege) to your intellectual property to be enforced by a system of objective law. She was against using the State as a means to 'beat your competitiors over the head' in regards to innovations. You can find her views in "Patents and Copyrights" (chapter in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

you can read her mind on this topic.

Oh sorry, I actually don't consider mind-reading to be a means to knowledge.

must have missed where I put her "anywhere near Stalin". If that was your inference on my statement, then you must also believe that I was putting her "somewhere near Spooner" as well. Clearly I was doing neither, as the statement was quite literal. On a scale of Spooner to Stalin, she's SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

That's really quite dishonest. Is Ron Paul in "somewhere in the middle" between Spooner and Stalin? Rothbard wasn't against copyrights, is he "somewhere in the middle" between Spooner and Stalin? What kind of scale is this? "Somewhere" in the middle? Where? If by "somewhere" in the middle you meant "nowhere near Stalin" then that was a really misleading thing to say. Someone who supports only police, courts, and national defense is not "in the middle" or ANYWHERE near a communist dictator.

__27__

03-04-2010, 01:55 AM

That's really quite dishonest. Is Ron Paul in "somewhere in the middle" between Spooner and Stalin? Rothbard wasn't against copyrights, is he "somewhere in the middle" between Spooner and Stalin? What kind of scale is this? "Somewhere" in the middle? Where? If by "somewhere" in the middle you meant "nowhere near Stalin" then that was a really misleading thing to say. Someone who supports only police, courts, and national defense is not "in the middle" or ANYWHERE near a communist dictator.

It's quite honest. I placed her exactly where she is in reality, somewhere in the middle. All of the opposite comparisons to Spooner can also be made. She supports IP, she supports government force, and on the list goes, she is certainly NOWHERE NEAR Spooner. Hence, she is SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, definitely NOT Stalin, and definitely NOT Spooner.

Get over your buttlove for Rand. She is what she is, and if you take her for something more then you are subjugating your own free will and individualism to her.

7402

03-04-2010, 02:09 AM

It's quite honest. I placed her exactly where she is in reality, somewhere in the middle. All of the opposite comparisons to Spooner can also be made. She supports IP, she supports government force, and on the list goes, she is certainly NOWHERE NEAR Spooner. Hence, she is SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, definitely NOT Stalin, and definitely NOT Spooner.

It's quite dishonest. You placed her exactly nowhere, on the most subjective statement you could make in order to convince people that she was something of a statist in the realm approaching Stalinism. It was a smear designed to lie to people on this forum. Why lie? Minarchists like Rand, Dr. Paul, Ludwig von Mises, etc. are in no way "in the middle" between anarchy and dictatorship.

Get over your buttlove for Rand. She is what she is, and if you take her for something more then you are subjugating your own free will and individualism to her.

Stop defending Ayn Rand because I say so! Agree with me without rational basis or else you're denying your free will and individualism! Lol? Contradiction much?

crreid

03-04-2010, 03:30 PM

I've studied Ron Paul somewhat (I made it to Liberty Forest didn't I?)
I am also only halfway through Atlas Shrugged.
All I wanted were some similarities and differences!

Thank all of you who did that for me I appreciate it

MarkoH

03-03-2011, 07:58 PM

7402 writes that “... Ayn Rand was a straight up isolationist, opposed every war she lived through ... .”

Indeed, and you can read a collection of quotes of her about it:
Ayn Rand on WW II (http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnWWII.htm)

TCE writes: “At least the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, is an interventionist.”

Yes, and that’s putting it mildly. However, “at least” is a very weak “at least” because the self-styled “Ayn Rand” Institute -- formed after Ayn Rand’s death as noted by 7402 -- perverts her ideas. That’s the general theme of ARI Watch (http://ariwatch.com/).

It’s ARI that’s loony, not Ayn Rand. Her support of Israel was probably based on ignorance and being surrounded by the wrong people, see
Ayn Rand on Israel (http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnIsrael.htm).

FrankRep

03-03-2011, 08:36 PM

That is patently false. There is no such thing as "Objectivist foriegn policy" as such, and Ayn Rand was a straight up isolationist, opposed every war she lived through, and supported the George Washington-style of foreign policy.

Ayn Rand disagrees with you!

Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

bruce leeroy

03-03-2011, 08:52 PM

dbill27

03-03-2011, 09:53 PM

Ayn Rand is a genius. End of Story

WilliamShrugged

03-03-2011, 10:32 PM

I think it is quite sad for so many here to have a problem with Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged in High School and that book made me feel like I wasn't alone out there with my economic viewpoints. Her writings were a great stepping stone for me. Just like Ron Paul is to a lot of Anarcho Capitialist (hope this doesn't start another mini-anarchist vs anarchist debate.)

Xenophage

03-03-2011, 11:00 PM

Rand made moral judgments comparing Israel to the other Middle Eastern countries that I presume any lover of liberty should agree with. She was not afraid to make a moral judgment, such as "Communism is evil and capitalism is good." In her philosophy, such judgments were necessitated by an active, discerning mind.

If you take the view that Israel is morally equivalent to Iran, or that its moral worth is purely subjective, then you can't also take a view that your political ideologies are morally superior to any form of dictatorship. She never expressed that she thought Israel was perfect, only that it was massively superior to its enemies. She never expressed that we should send foreign aid to Israel, or go to war against our own national interests.

She was an individualist, abhorred war and correctly identified the source of war as collectivism.

The ARI isn't completely out of line with Rand, but has created and asserted some philosophical positions that Rand herself never posited and frankly I think she would disagree with.

That said, Rand wasn't perfect, either! Especially as she got older, she seemed to draw some wildly irrational conclusions - but mostly about things I think are rather trivial. On the whole I personally find myself more of an Objectivist than anything else.

bruce leeroy

03-05-2011, 02:43 AM

I would just like to ask again, what's with the "raped by gingers" shit. I've read atlas shrugged serveral times and I dont get the reference

emazur

03-05-2011, 03:30 AM

I would just like to ask again, what's with the "raped by gingers" shit. I've read atlas shrugged serveral times and I dont get the reference

Howard Roark from the Fountainhead (http://ccarcia3.deviantart.com/art/Howard-Roark-Architect-172076101) "raped" the lead female character (I don't remember the scene too well and didn't think much of it. Seemed like a "she wanted to but was hesitant and had no regrets afterward" kind of thing, but I'd have to read it again)

Reactionary

03-05-2011, 03:36 AM

Her support of Israel was probably based on ignorance and being surrounded by the wrong people, see
Ayn Rand on Israel (http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnIsrael.htm).

I would replace "ignorance" with "obvious tribalism". And "wrong people" with "her people"

Really people cant see the facade? Extreme libertarianism and open borders for all the world, especially western civilisation, everywhere... except Israel

It is the same with everything else... tribalism is bad!!! group identity (even if voluntary) is bad! now please just ignore that little tribalist state in the middle East