Ayn Rand: In her own words

[doodle]

Some people may not be aware that Ayn Rand, whose book was recently transformed into a failed movie by an executive producer and notorious neocon who had funded pro Iraq war/occupation video campaign, used to utter preety illogical, irrational words when it come to US foreign policy and supporting of foreign welfare states:


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

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

IMO, mentality behing these words is the reason for American's ongoing economic fall and gropings/undressing of Americans daughters and sons today. I have no idea if while she was alive she professed racial equality between arabs and jews but does anyone disagree with above reading of her words?

I had posted my comments in the other thread about her words but it is possible that thread was referring to some other words of hers.






The ARI's first board of directors included psychologist Edith Packer and businessman Ed Snider. Snider was also one of the founding donors for the organization.

The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. Our Commander-In-Chief must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who conspire to kill them.

Though some at ARI initially supported the invasion of Iraq, it opposes how the Iraq War has been handled.[25] Since October 2, 2001, the institute has held that Iran should be the primary target in the war against "Islamic totalitarianism."[24]

ARI is generally supportive of Israel.[26] Of Zionism, executive director of the institute Yaron Brook writes: "Zionism fused a valid concern - self-preservation amid a storm of hostility - with a toxic premise - ethnically based collectivism and religion."[27]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand_Institute





Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Sarah Palin and Ed Snider's game misconduct

Not many Philadelphians even know about Ed Snider's politics, because most of the time we didn't have to. But he's quite far to the political right, a devoted acolyte of the late conservative icon Ayn Rand, funding an institute based on her principles and giving speeches about her. (A Philadelphia Magazine profile of Snider said he won't read anything in the Inquirer except for the sports sections because the paper's too liberal for him.) Fair enough, but in the last two years Snider has veered off. Even though his beloved Rand did not believe in pre-emptive war, Snider is now a major financial support of continuing our very wrongheaded pre-emptive war in Iraq and sending new storm clouds over its neighbor, Iran.

According to numerous news accounts, Snider is a leading donor to the group Freedom's Watch, which is spending millions (here's the repulsive part I mentioned up top) promoting its lethal policies in the Middle East and right-wing candidates like Sarah Palin and John McCain who support that agenda. Arising from a 2007 meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, one of Freedom Watch's first efforts (employing former Bush White House aide Ari Fleisher as its spokesman) was a $15 million ad campaign in support of the troop "surge" in Iraq that falsely conflated that war with 9/11. (Says a military veteran, over shots of the World Trade Center, "They attacked us, and they will again. They won’t stop in Iraq.") The group also once had ambitious plans to stir up American public sentiment against the regime in Iran, although that seems to have taken a back seat in recent months to so-far failed efforts to elect Republicans to Congress in special elections (perhaps because the Bush administration itself seems to be no longer angling for a showdown with Tehran).



http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/This_Saturday_turn_your_back_on_the_pucker.html

THAT’S COMCASTIC!: Spectacor Sports Baron Ed Snider Is Funding The Movement To Save The War

http://www.phawker.com/2007/08/24/thats-comcastic-spectacor-baron-ed-snider-is-funding-the-movement-to-save-the-war/

I had some questions and was first feeling little bad for movie's funder after some views posted here that movie was a flop, not anymore.


Update. Other discussion about ARI school of thought was also becoming a discussion about the movie, so I'm merging the two as they were becoming same.

Few pro wars, pro police state, pro increased government powers sample ads that Ed Snider, founder donor of Ayn Rand Institute and executive producer of the movie "Atlas Shrugged" funded:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4_snjzFphg&feature=channel_video_title


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2rdL_WC4Zo&feature=channel_video_title


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJm5NFhO9wk&feature=channel_video_title


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbLuAFkTZJU&feature=channel_video_title

[abolitionist]

I'm confused. You use "neocon" as a smear, and then you say she's illogical when she takes an essentially isolationist position on foriegn policy.

Near as I can tell, the whole purpose of this thread is to smear Ayn Rand. Well, she's dead. She can't defend herself. Smearing her is pointless.

And in my experience, those who smear her, do so because they are attempting to defend collectivism.

Ayn Rands "crime" is that she demolished the philosophical foundations of collectivism. If you want to debate collectivism and take the pro-collectivist side, be my guest. But do it honestly, by talking about collectivism.

No libertarian should reject Atlas Shrugged. To do so is to reject philosophy and principle and to embrace "libertarianism" as a blind ideology without backing from philosophy or principle. We should all be familiar with the Non Aggression Principle. Well, Atlas Shrugged laid out why NAP is a moral position. It defended it from first premises. IF you've got another work that does so, by all means, tell us about it. Until then, all libertarians should read Atlas Shrugged, and I question the sincerity of any who won't.

So long as you're attacking Rand herself, (or the ARI, which is as far from objectivism as current political parties are from Jefferson) you're knocking down a strawman.

[doodle]

First I'm glad you took the time to disagree, I almost thought no one differed on this. But it's hard to have a good debate if you'll start with incorrect assumptions or misreading of what is right in front of you. I called founder of Ayn Rand institute a neocon and presented plenty evidence in support of my claim:


Snider is now a major financial support of continuing our very wrongheaded pre-emptive war in Iraq and sending new storm clouds over its neighbor, Iran.

I called words of Ayan Rand as expressed in above clip irrational because she sounds like a collectivist when she says she would side with Israel because it is "technologically adavanced" and arabs are a "mostly savage, primitive" group. Talk about group think. Clearly she is not her to defend her words here but my hope was she might have a supporter or two here who might try to help explain her seemingly collectivist mind at work in that statement. She is advocating support for an oppressive, brutal regime that has in violation of international law oopressed another people and occupied their land. Germany was a very technologically and culturally advanced nation around the time of holocaust, would that have been enough a reason for her to support German policies then?

[Xenophage]

Rand's foreign policy positions were essentially non-interventionist. She vehemently opposed foreign aid, including foreign aid for Israel. She did not believe in pre-emptive war.

What she spoke of was moral support. She claimed, correctly in my view, that if we're going to cheer on any side of an engagement that it ought to be the side that more consistently advocates and pursues western values. She never advocated military intervention in middle eastern affairs where it did not concern some actual aggression against the rights of United States citizens

The unavoidable fact is that, while Israel is no beacon of freedom, it is clearly culturally superior to the collectivist, mystical societies that border it.

Furthermore, the ARI's endorsement of war is inconsistent with Objectivism as I understand it, and I know of few Objectivists that consider themselves ideologically in league with the ARI. Most Objectivists are pretty independent.

[doodle]

Rand's foreign policy positions were essentially non-interventionist. She vehemently opposed foreign aid, including foreign aid for Israel. She did not believe in pre-emptive war.

So the founding donor of ARI and executive producer of movie "Atlas Shurgged" does not really believe in Ayn Rand's philosohy when he funds ads for US invasion/occupation of Iraq/Iran? Same goes for the neocon chick that runs the website "atlas shrugged". Clearly Ayn's philosophy is having some strange opposite impact on the people associated closest with her name and brand.




The unavoidable fact is that, while Israel is no beacon of freedom, it is clearly culturally superior to the collectivist, mystical societies that border it.

Clearly UK was more advanced and culturally superior when it colonized India, South Africa and many other parts of the world. But that does not mean US would/should support its occupation of foreign people/lands with "inferior" cultures.

Isn't "culture" in this context a collectivist term that can be eomployed to vilify collectively a whole group associated with the "culture"?

[Carehn]

So the founding donor of ARI and executive producer of movie "Atlas Shurgged" does not really believe in Ayn Rand's philosohy when he funds ads for US invasion/occupation of Iraq/Iran? Same goes for the neocon chick that runs the website "atlas shrugged". Clearly Ayn's philosophy is having some strange opposite impact on the people associated closest with her name and brand.




Clearly UK was more advanced and culturally superior when it colonized India, South Africa and many other parts of the world. But that does not mean US would/should support its occupation of foreign people/lands with "inferior" cultures.

Isn't "culture" in this context a collectivist term that can be eomployed to vilify collectively a whole group associated with the "culture"?

I sent http://www.peikoff.com/ a question about the movie and he sent me an email saying that he would refuse to see the movie because of the guy making it. Ask him yourself.

[doodle]

I sent http://www.peikoff.com/ a question about the movie and he sent me an email saying that he would refuse to see the movie because of the guy making it. Ask him yourself.

I'll take your word for it.
And it's perfectly understandable to me as I wasn't willing to spend a penny either to see a movie made by Snider or Spielsberg or anyone who funds foreign wars campaigns that bring gropings and other economic blowbacks for American public.

[Carehn]

I'll take your word for it.
And it's perfectly understandable to me as I wasn't willing to spend a penny either to see a movie made by Snider or Spielsberg or anyone who funds foreign wars campaigns that bring gropings and other economic blowbacks for American public.

I don't know if you know who piekoff is. But to help your cause i will post a video of him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw
As far as Rand goes I wish she was alive today to experience this time. Im willing to bet she would have been wonderful to have around. I don't think she would have approved of peikoffs behavior and may have beat him for it. Word is she was a cruel mistress.

[doodle]

I don't know if you know who piekoff is. But to help your cause i will post a video of him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw
As far as Rand goes I wish she was alive today to experience this time. Im willing to bet she would have been wonderful to have around. I don't think she would have approved of peikoffs behavior and may have beat him for it. Word is she was a cruel mistress.

I'm done after watching 10 sec of him opening his mouth, the guy sounds like an immoral scum to me.
I believe in sanctity of innocent human life and that people of all races are equal.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why people listen to Ayn Rand when there is Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson two completely superior women, I have no idea.

[Carehn]

I'm done after watching 10 sec of him opening his mouth, the guy sounds like an immoral scum to me.
I believe in sanctity of innocent human life and that people of all races are equal.

I was just helping you out for your next Anti Rand thread. Post that video as well. As for me I liked her. And more and more Im finding those who don't know almost nothing about her.

Also i thought you where trying to bash the institute and its founder so i helped by pointing out who the founder was. It did not look like you knew and what with me being a nice guy and all i thought i would help.

[low preference guy]

Why people listen to Ayn Rand when there is Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson two completely superior women, I have no idea.

What a disaster.

Why people read any other writer when Mark Twain is clearly superior to all of them, I have no idea.

[Carehn]

Also i have been fishing for info on how Dr. Peckoff feels about Ron Paul. I have been asking him about voting and why he votes. To this day i can't get him to write back about paul and that is mostly a good thing. People close to Rand tend to take any chance they can get to brow beat people. Objectivists tend to be dicks. His silence about Ron Paul tells me he mostly approves.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Personally I am sick and tired of these "associational" defamations. As in, person X knows/is associated with/has worked with person Y, person Y has done/been associated with a, b, and c stuff we don't like, therefore person X is bad.

It's an extremely weak argument because it gives away that you can't find enough to make person X look that bad. Also, it neglects that sometimes people cooperate with others they might also have disagreements with.

By the standard of "was once associated with person Y" most libertarians are complete bastards, including Doug Wead, Judge Napalitano, Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson...

[low preference guy]

Also i have been fishing for info on how Dr. Peckoff feels about Ron Paul.

I recall him writing Dr. Paul off because Paul is pro-life.

[BlackTerrel]

Personally I am sick and tired of these "associational" defamations. As in, person X knows/is associated with/has worked with person Y, person Y has done/been associated with a, b, and c stuff we don't like, therefore person X is bad.

It's an extremely weak argument because it gives away that you can't find enough to make person X look that bad. Also, it neglects that sometimes people cooperate with others they might also have disagreements with.

By the standard of "was once associated with person Y" most libertarians are complete bastards, including Doug Wead, Judge Napalitano, Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson...

It's the Glenn Beck chalk board syndrome.

[Carehn]

I recall him writing Dr. Paul off because Paul is pro-life.

That is a good point, and a ball buster. I'm gunna stay on him till i get an answer from him. He has expressed 'compromise' to an extent in emails but he did not use the word compromise and i cant think of the one im trying to use.Peckoff is a tuff nut man. Hard to even get him to talk about libertarians as i have brought the issue up. He absolutely refuses to answer any questions i have about Rand and Rothbard and what went down. Strike up a conversation with him man. Go to his web site and send him a question. If you don't fool with him (witch is hard) he will reply by email most of the time or post an audio on his page of your question.

[low preference guy]

That is a good point, and a ball buster. I'm gunna stay on him till i get an answer from him.

I googled Peikoff Ron Paul and found the link. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z72cYWeVE9g)

Also, as a fan of Ayn Rand, I say Peikoff and Yaron Brooks are morons who don't get Objectivism.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I recall him writing Dr. Paul off because Paul is pro-life.

Doesn't quite sound like Peikoff. If you're a social conservative he will typically have dry, droll reasoning as to some subtle logical mistake you're making. But if you're pro-peace-with-Islam or self-define "libertarian" he's a hateful/shrieking ball of fear.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What a disaster.

Why people read any other writer when Mark Twain is clearly superior to all of them, I have no idea.

So you think God of the Machine is an inferior work compared to Ayn Rand's works? What about the Discovery of Freedom? You think anything Rand wrote compares to these masterpieces?

[low preference guy]

So you think God of the Machine is an inferior work compared to Ayn Rand's works? What about the Discovery of Freedom? You think anything Rand wrote compares to these masterpieces?

Not all the things they wrote are comparable. I think anyone can gain a lot from reading Ayn Rand's writings on ethics. And some of these things are nowhere in Paterson's writings.

[Carehn]

I googled Peikoff Ron Paul and found the link. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z72cYWeVE9g)

Also, as a fan of Ayn Rand, I say Peikoff and Yaron Brooks are morons who don't get Objectivism.

That is terrible. I'm going to go ask him if he has changed his mind yet.

[low preference guy]

That is terrible. I'm going to go ask him if he has changed his mind yet.

He influences very few. I'm not sure it's worth it.

[Carehn]

He influences very few. I'm not sure it's worth it.

This is really more for my personal enjoyment.

[Mattsa]

Not all the things they wrote are comparable. I think anyone can gain a lot from reading Ayn Rand's writings on ethics. And some of these things are nowhere in Paterson's writings.

Ayn Rand was a nutcase. She took libertarianism to an extreme that goes beyond what would create a healthy society. She believed that alturism was a human weakness. MAD as a box of frogs.

[abolitionist]

Furthermore, the ARI's endorsement of war is inconsistent with Objectivism as I understand it, and I know of few Objectivists that consider themselves ideologically in league with the ARI. Most Objectivists are pretty independent.

There's a common mistake that people make-- confusing a belief with a person. This is useful for people who want to smear Ayn Rand-- as they can then attack her by claiming that someone who funded an institute with her name on it held some political position at some point in time. As the starter of this thread did.

Peikoff does this by trying to advocate a belief system based on Rand's opinions, rather than her philosophy. Thus he would reach conclusions that are wrong.

In any debate these days, if your opponent is talking about ARI, "Ayn Rand" or Peikoff or other associates, they are being disingenuous, as far as I'm concerned.

Ayn Rand had lots of opinions. I disagree with many of them. Not ONE of those opinions is relevant to what objectivism is.

If anyone wants to debate objectivism, please read Atlas Shrugged. And then make a logical argument based on what the philosophy actually says.


I wasn't willing to spend a penny either to see a movie made by Snider or Spielsberg

I like how remaining (apparently) ignorant of the philosophy you're attacking is somehow an example if ideological purity.

Spielberg wasn't involved with the movie, by the way!

Read Atlas Shrugged. And do so with an open mind, understanding that Rand was a libertarian who was angry at the massive human destruction she witnessed in the USSR. Do that, and then come back here and talk about "her own words"-- and be able to make arguments based on what she actually said.

Your interpretation of the video in the first post is... nonsense.


As far as Rand goes I wish she was alive today to experience this time. Im willing to bet she would have been wonderful to have around. I don't think she would have approved of peikoffs behavior and may have beat him for it. Word is she was a cruel mistress.

Look at how she talked about Goldwater-- the Ron Paul of his time, and the last libertarian conservative (eg: non-neocon):

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/goldwater.html


I'm done after watching 10 sec of him opening his mouth, the guy sounds like an immoral scum to me.
I believe in sanctity of innocent human life and that people of all races are equal.

If you really believe in the sanctity of human life, and you know what life is, then you're an objectivist.

Unless, of course, by "sanctity" you mean that in the "pacifistic" way, which says that every man is a slave to any other man who will wield a club to attack him.

I think if you give Atlas Shrugged an honest reading, you'll be surprised. It presents a philosophy that supports libertarian values.


Why people listen to Ayn Rand when there is Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson two completely superior women, I have no idea.

You mean they were better looking? Maybe. The weird thing is, you seem to presume that there is something wrong with reading Rand. The reason people read Atlas Shrugged is that they gain a great deal from it.

Do you know of another work of philosophy that supports libertarianism to a greater degree? IF so, tell us about it.


Objectivists tend to be dicks.

I've seen 100 people insulting objectivists, like you just did, for every objectivist I've seen insulting others. I don't see objectivists running around libertarian forums calling ron paul supporters dicks.... because the objectivists recognize that Ron Paul is probably the most ideal candidate running.

Why do you feel comfortable calling people names? Or making such a broad generalization against a group of people who adhere to a libertarian philosophy?

I'm used to leftist hatred of objectivism and Ayn Rand. They hate her because she demolished collectivism.


Also, as a fan of Ayn Rand, I say Peikoff and Yaron Brooks are morons who don't get Objectivism.

I'd add Ayn Rand to that list, but then, that's just because I hold her to a higher standard.

A key perspective of objectivism, however, is that you have to make up your own mind, based on your best judgement and understanding of the facts.


Ayn Rand was a nutcase. She took libertarianism to an extreme that goes beyond what would create a healthy society. She believed that alturism was a human weakness. MAD as a box of frogs.

Your use of the word altruism is at best, imprecise. I suspect you don't actually know what Ayn Rand believed, or what her philosophy says.

Yet you feel comfortable making these broad, disparaging, characterizations.

[Carehn]

abolitionist
I am a fan or Rand and her ideas, books, and so forth. I also thank you for the link to the Goldwater thing. Now when i said "dicks" i was only trying to describe others and even my self in the most objective way possible. I was trying to call it like i see it. You should embrace it. Long live those objectivist dicks! The world needs more of them.

[abolitionist]

There's a joke in there somewhere about long objectivist dicks... but the difficulty quotient in pulling it off exceeds my intelligence. As to your point, I don't really have a problem with people having the courage of their convictions, and such people will be called dicks, probably regularly... so I don't think we really disagree. However, I see kids-- young people who are maybe just barely libertarians-- getting the idea that its "not cool" to read Atlas Shrugged, and I fear we're going to eventually end up with a generation of "libertarians" who aren't able to construct arguments in support of libertarianism.

I like Ron Paul, and he's a good man. But he needs to be a gateway to Mises, Rothbard, Rand and your-favorite-big-thinker.

[eproxy100]

"If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages."

Somebody quoted Ayn Rand as saying that.

Is Ayn Rand anti-gun? Lemme be clear that I agree that anarchy is a bad idea. But in that quote she seems to be saying that we should be relying on the police for protection and that an armed population means the place will turn into a gang land.

Sorry that I'm sorta hijacking this thread. I didn't get a response in the other Ayn Rand thread.