The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul

[MarkoH]

The so called “Ayn Rand Institute” opposes Ron Paul, for spurious reasons. See

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul (http://ariwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm)

It quotes Yaron Brook, who heads ARI, saying that Ron Paul is an anarchist and un-American, if you can believe it.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Well than in that case fuck the Ayn Rand Institute.

[Feeding the Abscess]

“Ron Paul, for a variety of reasons, partially because I think he is very inarticulate but also because I think that his pro-free market agenda is driven by a fundamental hatred of government, not a love of individual rights, so it’s driven by a negative, this anarchistic libertarian – not all libertarians are like this but some do and Ron Paul I think certainly does – dislike of government, any kind of government.”

Rights come from government.

Is it any wonder people hold the ARI in low regard, holy crap.

[ShaneEnochs]

Well than in that case fuck the Ayn Rand Institute.

Indeed

[emazur]

Yaron Brooke has chilled out a bit since then - he had some good things to say about Ron Paul in his lecture to The Citadel (don't remember where they talked about him):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBCSi4ERVq0

But yeah, ARI's hawkish stance on war, extreme dislike of Muslims, and blinding support for Israel are big problems

[ProIndividual]

Randians have always been statists and warmongers. Ayn Rand herself hated libertarians and market anarchists like Rothbard (and other Austrian economics folks). We simply want too little of a minarchy or no minarchy at all, while they want a minarchy large enough to be barely a minarchy at all. Screw Randians, and Yaron that speech impediment-having "wu-ser".

If you can't pronounce your "r's" and you have gray hair, you aren't prioritizing correctly. Go to speech class and quit being a warmonger, Yaron. Rights don't come from government, you dipshit.

Objectivists are just smaller government neocons.

[Travlyr]

That's weird. Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist ... a very strict Constitutionalist.




Randians have always been statists and warmongers. Ayn Rand herself hated libertarians and market anarchists like Rothbard (and other Austrian economics folks). We simply want too little of a minarchy or no minarchy at all, while they want a minarchy large enough to be barely a minarchy at all. Screw Randians, and Yaron that speech impediment-having "wu-ser".

If you can't pronounce your "r's" and you have gray hair, you aren't prioritizing correctly. Go to speech class and quit being a warmonger, Yaron. Rights don't come from government, you dipshit.

Objectivists are just smaller government neocons.

So are you misquoting me in your signature to make others think I that misquoted Rothbard?


"You guys have been lying to your recruits for years. Rothbard advocates for minimal government..." - Travlyr
That's dishonest. An honest person would include the whole quote. Rothbard said it. I just quoted him.

[Occam's Banana]

“Ron Paul, for a variety of reasons, partially because I think he is very inarticulate but also because I think that his pro-free market agenda is driven by a fundamental hatred of government, not a love of individual rights, so it’s driven by a negative, this anarchistic libertarian – not all libertarians are like this but some do and Ron Paul I think certainly does – dislike of government, any kind of government.”

Jeebus! Who is "very inarticulate" ??? :eek: Talk about dwellers in glass houses throwing stones !!! :rolleyes:

EDIT: Jeebus!

[Liberty74]

That's weird. Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist ... a very strict Constitutionalist.

Exactly. If one wants a bigger federal government and the people demand it (not the corrupt politicians), then there is a Constitutional process to follow. All other laws and regulations fall to the state and local governments. But in general, Paul is ant-government (not an anarchist per say) because government is force. Force is violence. Why does Brooke support violence???

[thoughtomator]

Objectivism is the doctrine of the lazy individualist pseudo-intellectual who can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world.

[MarkoH]

thoughtomator,

The so-called "Ayn Rand Institute" was created after Rand's death and ideologically has little to do with her ideas. Ron Paul would be even better if he were more philosophically Objectivist -- as opposed to like ARI.

emazur,

Yaron Brook's Citadel talk was given before the second Mallory Factor interview.

Did you listen to the whole video? Sure, at the beginning he says
"the candidacy of Ron Paul ... has really shaken things up a little bit and forced other candidates to deal with certain economic issues ..."
contradicting what he says in venues preceding and following his Citadel talk. Later in the Citadel talk he smears Paul as a "pacifist."

He adapts his speech to his audience. The man cannot be trusted.

ProIndividual wrote:

"If you can't pronounce your R's and you have gray hair, you aren't prioritizing correctly."

That's ridiculous. 'ProIndividual' might as well be an agent provocateur.

Mark
ARI Watch (http://ARIwatch.com)

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I watched Yaron Brook debate a socialist one time. I could have sworn he sounded like an anarchist himself.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Jeebus! Who is "very inarticulate" ??? :eek: Talk about dwellers in glass houses throwing stones !!! :rolleyes:

EDIT: Jeebus!

Yeah, no kidding. The guy trashes Ron when Brooks just can't speak the English language... while being the main figure head of an organization? Yeesh.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I watched Yaron Brook debate a socialist one time. I could have sworn he sounded like an anarchist himself.

I'm pretty sure I watched that debate as well. He was a lot better than the socialist, obviously. But I don't trust this snake because he is an apologist for disgusting war crimes. He's probably just jealous of how popular Ron Paul is

[Victor Grey]

Ah whatever really. I say work with these people where you can and ignore the rest. No skin off my back.

Fundamentalistic Randites seem to be more focused on being "personal anarchists" than state-focused anarchists/minarchists.

Not my bag, man.

As for myself well, I'll stick to mere common cordiality for people who wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire. About it though. I could think of better neighbors to have however, still without them being deep statists.

[Badger Paul]

Objectivists are just smaller government neocons.

Which pretty much sums up Paul Ryan...

[Occam's Banana]

Objectivists are just smaller government neocons.
Ah, I get it! I've heard Objectivists of the ARI "nuke 'em all" stripe referred to as "neo-libertarians."

I didn't understand what this was supposed to indicate until just now. NEO-conservative, NEO-libertarian ... Derp! Derp!

[GuerrillaXXI]

The Randians are basically neocon Zionists who are trying to co-opt the libertarian movement, just as a group of hardcore Zionist Jews co-opted the Republican Party and turned it into the Neocon Party. Their goal is the same as it's always been: to promote US wars for Israel and a general "clash of civilizations" between the West and the Islamic world.

[trey4sports]

definitely a smear job....

[Brian4Liberty]

Objectivists are just smaller government neocons.

Ayn Rand is in the picture:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html

[heavenlyboy34]

The Randians are basically neocon Zionists who are trying to co-opt the libertarian movement, just as a group of hardcore Zionist Jews co-opted the Republican Party and turned it into the Neocon Party. Their goal is the same as it's always been: to promote US wars for Israel and a general "clash of civilizations" between the West and the Islamic world.
Rand herself was quite anti-arab, and the Objectivist foreign policy was virtually the same as the neocons', as I understand it.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Didn't Rothbard once say that if someone became a Randian there was no hope for them?

Edit: I found it. He did and I agree.

[MarkoH]

The point of the starting post of this thread has been lost.

Yaron Brook and the other frauds at the so-called Ayn Rand Institute do not speak for Ayn Rand. If Ayn Rand were alive today, she herself would support Ron Paul just as she supported Goldwater in the election of 1964.

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul (http://ARIwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm)
.................................................. .....

[nbruno322]

Here is a debate between Doug Casey and Yaron Brook in which Yaron Brook basically defends having a policeman on every corner. It is well worth you time to listen to.

Brook is NOT, I repeat NOT someone we can trust or should look up to


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNmO3oArWQ

[Dogsoldier]

Ayn Rand not a libertarian?Things I've seen of her on youtube strongly suggest libertarian.

[nbruno322]

Rand herself was quite anti-arab, and the Objectivist foreign policy was virtually the same as the neocons', as I understand it.

Correct....see below


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

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ayn Rand in one word narcissistic. She was never a proponent of Classical-Liberalism - Libertarianism. In fact, she quite stated her disgust of that long tradition on many occasions. Of course her and other objectivists do not advocate for the same ideals we do. They are as others eluded to staunch advocates of the police-warfare State with all the antecedent Corporate-State machinations. They are not friends of the market or of liberty. Now, can we diverse their political methodology with personal egoism? It has nearly no symbiosis.

The author also makes the common mistake to believe one is mutually exclusive of the other. We love natural rights and individual liberty, therefore we dislike Government because Government is by definition the negation of those rights. Yaron has the IQ of about five it seems. Anyways, who needs the ARI when we all ready have Mises?

[Occam's Banana]

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

That is just sad.

It's a perfect example of the sort of racism and collectivism (in the form of assigning collective guilt) that Ayn Rand so harshly (and rightly) denounced when exhibited by *other* people.

AR would have been a much more effective messenger if she had only been able to live up to her message.

[The Free Hornet]

Randians have always been statists and warmongers.

Unsubstantiated bullshit (and collectivist thinking). You might have had a point had you said Objectivists. In that case, we could at least discuss particulars. Objectivism is not a "big tent" philosophy but it has a diverse group of people. It is more Catholic than Protestant in that it is guided by central figures. You might as well state "all Catholics are X" because of some Papal decree. You would be just as wrong then as you are now.

By the way, where is your published statement against the Vietnam war?:


“It [the Vietnam War] was a shameful war ... shameful because it was a war which the U.S. had no selfish reason to fight, because it served no national interest, because we had nothing to gain from it, because the lives and the heroism of thousands of American soldiers (and billions of American wealth) were sacrificed ...” Ayn Rand

She opposed the draft and Korean war. She wasn't perfect wrt foreign policy, but there is zero evidence she was a neocon (e.g., she is not a socialist like most of them). Somebody's BS link merely lists her as an "early influece" of a neocon. A baseless accusation.


Objectivism is the doctrine of the lazy individualist pseudo-intellectual who can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world.

What do you believe and why? I am somewhat of an ex-Objectivist because of the IP issue (IP = force in its current implementation). Where is your evidence that these people "can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world"? Give us substantial evidence that if you were take the average Objectivist (not just a "fan") and give them a group of books and see if they can or cannot sort them into piles of fiction and nonfiction.

As a hardworking intellecutal, I know this request might drag you away from more important matters. However, I need your genius to establish just how poorly Objectivists would perform if sorting books at a library. Likely, you have the research at your fingertips an simply need to post it. Right? You wouldn't write "pseudo-intellectual" without the chops to back it up!

[The Free Hornet]

Ayn Rand in one word narcissistic [fuck you too]. She was never a proponent of Classical-Liberalism - Libertarianism.

Here is a timeline:

Classical Liberalism (1800s) --> Ayn Rand (born 1905) --> Libertarianism (1950s)

In fairness, Ayn Rand was a proponent of Objectivism, her own philosophy. You might as well bitch about how the Pope was never a Baptist or didn't advocate Latter-Day-Saintism or some other non-Catholic BS. Sometimes there are different things for no other reason than different groups and individuals are operating individually (big fucking surprise - huh?). I don't know if it is appropriate for you to conflate Classical Liberalism with Libertarianism. They are related but distinct in time. Not distinct in definition per se***. There are imprecisions in describing either. The one distinction is that both Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism can be discussed as arising in different times and with a multitude of influences. If Ayn Rand stands alone, it is because she earned it. Her name and her opinion is out there and will never be forgotten. She stood for something.

*** One HUGE ASS distinction regarding Classical Liberalism is the utilitarian influence which is very distinct from the natural rights influence. I could be wrong, but more of us are likely guided by natural rights than utilitarianism. I.e., more like Ayn Rand, less like the Classical Liberalism.


If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. (p. 986, 1959 paperback)

http://www.atlassociety.org/natural-rights


Why do so many people have to be haters when Ayn Rand is mentioned? Way to build that coalition. :rolleyes:

[Marky]

The point of the starting post of this thread has been lost.

Yaron Brook and the other frauds at the so-called Ayn Rand Institute do not speak for Ayn Rand. If Ayn Rand were alive today, she herself would support Ron Paul just as she supported Goldwater in the election of 1964.

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul (http://ARIwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm)
.................................................. .....

And you’re basing this on what exactly? Rand despised the Austrian School Libertarians and was an apologist for Israeli state violence, blinded by her personal hatred for Arabs.

Goldwater and Ron Paul are not the same people. Ron Paul is on a whole different level of awareness than Goldwater ever was. When did you hear Goldwater break down the entire fraud of the Federal Reserve system? When did he ever criticize the Military Industrial Complex and it’s relationship to the Fed? I’m telling you…it’s these 2 issue that separate those the establishment can accept (Goldwater), and those that they cannot (Paul).

[nbruno322]

And you’re basing this on what exactly? Rand despised the Austrian School Libertarians and was an apologist for Israeli state violence, blinded by her personal hatred for Arabs.

Goldwater and Ron Paul are not the same people. Ron Paul is on a whole different level of awareness than Goldwater ever was. When did you hear Goldwater break down the entire fraud of the Federal Reserve system? When did he ever criticize the Military Industrial Complex and it’s relationship to the Fed? I’m telling you…it’s these 2 issue that separate those the establishment can accept (Goldwater), and those that they cannot (Paul).

Well said

[MarkoH]

Actually Ayn Rand thought that von Mises (co-founder of the Austrian school of economics) was one of the better economists. She disagreed with him in that she thought he tried to replace philosophy with economics, whereas she thought the right philosophy, especially ethics, was necessary before one could correctly argue economics.

Goldwater and Ron Paul are not the same, indeed from the point of view of Ayn Rand's ideas Ron Paul is much better than Goldwater. See the end of The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul (http://ariwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm). Keep in mind that the former is the so-called "Ayn Rand" Institute, for it betrays and twists her philosophy.

[Cyberbrain]

Saying the views of the ARI (and Yaron Brook) represent the views of all or most objectivists and objectivist philosophy is like saying the Cato Institute and Reason represent the views of all or most libertarians. Ayn Rand would of endorsed Ron Paul. I can't stand Yaron Brook...

[kuckfeynes]

Really the big difference between Objectivists and libertarians is one of a priori or a posteriori knowledge. Philosophically a very significant difference, but in practice not so much. Unfortunately the people that bore her name as their banner after her death chose to take a personal shortcoming and use it to justify military adventurism. Sure she had her biases, but I highly doubt Rand would approve of what the ARI advocates today. Such is the weakness of Objectivism though. Dealing with all the metaphysical questions first leaves a lot of room for rationalization that should otherwise be black and white if the NAP is self-apparent.

Some good background reading on the subject...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stromberg4.html

Probably said it best...

"She was an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good."

[MarkoH]

Ayn Rand furnished more reasons for her positions than anyone writing in her lifetime, so she cannot in truth be called dogmatic. As for intolerant, of course she was. Intolerance and discrimination are virtues if what you won't stand for is socialism and fascism.

Setting aside Rothbard’s intellectual work, which I gather is a mixture of good and bad, there are his personal criticisms of Rand and her circle. The latter contain some truth but he cannot be relied on for details. For example, no one was ever ostracized because their spouse's religion. Some of his details are outright lies. He is a vicious personality even though I’ve been told some of his intellectual work is worth reading.

Anyway, that was half a century ago. The so-called Ayn Rand Institute and their opposition to Ron Paul (http://ariwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm) is what concerns me now.

[kuckfeynes]

Yes, if we are only talking about the ARI, they are not allies in the fight for liberty, they are a special interest group.
Do you have evidence that Rothbard lied, or are you just going by hearsay?
It's not really fair to cast his entire critique of the philosophy as not intellectual because of his sharp tone or one maybe spurious/maybe not attack.

[MarkoH]

I'm not here to discuss Rothbard's mendacity. The point is that the so-called Ayn Rand Institute is not always for Ayn Rand's ideas and frequently their opposite, and their trashing of Ron Paul is one indication of it. Protests to the contrary, the people at the Ayn Rand Institute have more in common with neoconservatives (http://ariwatch.com/BirdsOfAFeather.htm) than with Ayn Rand.

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not here to discuss Rothbard's [alleged] mendacity.

Well, apparently you are ...


Setting aside Rothbard’s intellectual work, which I gather is a mixture of good and bad, there are his personal criticisms of Rand and her circle. The latter contain some truth but he cannot be relied on for details. For example, no one was ever ostracized because their spouse's religion. Some of his details are outright lies. He is a vicious personality even though I’ve been told some of his intellectual work is worth reading.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I'm not here to discuss Rothbard's mendacity. The point is that the so-called Ayn Rand Institute is not always for Ayn Rand's ideas and frequently their opposite, and their trashing of Ron Paul is one indication of it. Protests to the contrary, the people at the Ayn Rand Institute have more in common with neoconservatives (http://ariwatch.com/BirdsOfAFeather.htm) than with Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand on Arabs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Also, Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the federal reserve itself, isn't a neoconservative? He was certainly part of Ayn Rand's inner circle.

Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a neoconservative since she is a phony.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Objectivism is the doctrine of the lazy individualist pseudo-intellectual who can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world.

Indeed. Having someone tell me I should go to the fictional section of the bookstore to learn the philosophy of objectivism, and fiction is by definition a subjective work - is surreal.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Rand herself was quite anti-arab, and the Objectivist foreign policy was virtually the same as the neocons', as I understand it.

Follow the war money.

The first line of her book Atlas Shrugged, used throughout, is stolen from The Driver - where it is who is Henry M Galt. They're both about trains, but are as different as night and day - The Driver is, fyi, a happier and better book. The title is from what drives human cooperation, something you won't find in Atlas Shrugged, which seems to want to tear it down. There is even a character in the book whose description and actions seem to be the exact persona that Ayn Rand carried on later - her acting model I suppose.

At the point that a book that purports to be teaching ethics and how men should deal with each, plagerizes from another book, you should put it down as worthless. In this case, that's the first line of Atlas Shrugged.

There is enough other stuff like this in Atlas Shrugged for me to know it was intentional. If you like nasty mind games and jokes that 15 year olds won't get - who get "altruistically" sent this book to their high schools by the Ayn Rand Institute, - 400,000 free copies a year, then this is the book for you. For others, you have to wonder why a classic needs to be propped up that way at all.

[Tamasaburo]

Indeed. Having someone tell me I should go to the fictional section of the bookstore to learn the philosophy of objectivism, and fiction is by definition a subjective work - is surreal.

It is possible to lie with facts and to create a fiction to tell the truth.

If the Ayn Rand Institute is anti-Paul then that is, indeed, lame, but Ayn Rand herself was a great ally of ours.

Sure, she wasn't right about everything and she had an unfortunate tendency to encourage a cult of personality and to oversimplify her opposition, but I'd still stay she was pretty damn brilliant, considering she grew up and was educated behind the Iron Curtain and that English was her second language.

She was a friend of von Mises, and Ron and Rand are both fans of her work, btw.

[Occam's Banana]

It is possible to lie with facts and to create a fiction to tell the truth.
In fact, that is (or should) be the primary purpose of literature (and of all true art).

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Ayn rand and her followers have always tended to be assholes, even though she had a lot of stuff right.

[The Free Hornet]

Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a neoconservative since she is a phony.

Can you define "neoconservative" and explain how it applies to Ayn Rand?

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

Keep in mind Leinord Peikoff - a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan - thought people should vote Clinton over GHW Bush in 1992 and he did the same with Kerry over W Bush:


He contends that Kerry - a mixed economy/semi-socialist - would be innocuous in the current climate. On the other hand, Bush - a Christian fundamentalist - is the leader of anti-reason, irrationality, and statist policies.

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/ar/t324.htm

[nbruno322]

Can you define "neoconservative" and explain how it applies to Ayn Rand?

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

Keep in mind Leinord Peikoff - a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan - thought people should vote Clinton over GHW Bush in 1992 and he did the same with Kerry over W Bush:

She was not part of the original neocon crowd obviously, though they did share a similar view towards foreign policy.

[NiceGoing]

Objectivism is the doctrine of the lazy individualist pseudo-intellectual who can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world.

The Ayn Rand Institute is a spurious representative of Ayn Rand's best qualities, her principles and her brilliance. Too bad there is no way to **thoroughly** discredit them short of Ms. Rand herself coming back from heaven to do so. :)

[The Free Hornet]

She was not part of the original neocon crowd obviously, though they did share a similar view towards foreign policy.



In the early 1970s, Socialist Michael Harrington was one of the first to use "neoconservative" in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" – who had moved significantly to the right.[citation needed] These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union.

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

Ayn Rand opposed the Vietnam war:


These included supporting abortion rights,[68] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"),[69] supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 as "civilized men fighting savages",[70] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[71] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws against it.

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

I don't think it is fair to say her foreign policy views (not philosophy but views on specifics) was similar to the neoconservatives. It is common for people to have overlapping and differing views on this that don't always align with their domestic political opinions.

1) her clear opposition to Vietnam and the draft
2) her support of Israel (1973 war) lacks evidence it would match the unconditional nature of the neocons today
3) no evidence she would support our Middle East efforts and the trillions it has cost us or the billions of dollars in aid to Arab countries when she was - presumably - so anti-Arab

She had near zero in common with neocons domestically and I think it would be a stretch to say even half her foreign policy was or would be in common with them today. Also, she lived through the Russian Revolution so some alignment with cold warriors is to be expected.

[Occam's Banana]

Looks like the consensus is pretty much a big "thumbs down" for the ARI. Can't say I've ever seen or heard anything from them that would lead me to disagree with that assessment.

How about the Atlas Society (http://www.atlassociety.org/)? I've never really followed them. What's the word? Any assessments or opinions?

[MarkoH]

The Atlas Society differs from the Ayn Rand Institute only in the intensity and quantity of its output, otherwise they're about the same.

Mark
ARIwatch.com / ARI vs RonPaul (http://ariwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm)

[Mini-Me]

This Yaron character may be a total scumbag, and Ayn Rand may have been hypocritical regarding war and collectivism, but I think it's a mistake to follow in their footsteps and spew bile at Objectivists in return. Despite Ayn Rand's comments about war, Muslims, and libertarianism (the latter of which came mostly from an emotional protectiveness of the sanctity of her own doctrine...libertarians were too close for comfort), most Objectivists are strong allies of libertarianism and peace and strong supporters of Ron Paul...hardly neocons. Crap on Yaron all you like, because he deserves it, but making vicious attacks on Objectivism itself is only going to alienate allies. For all we know, that could be what Yaron WANTS, or even what he was put in charge of the ARI to do.

There have been at least two full-fledged Objectivists on this board who I greatly respect (AceNZ and lowpreferenceguy), and I would hate to see people like them get discouraged from the rest of us labelling them "neocons" and implicitly saying they're not good enough.

[DerailingDaTrain]

That quote about the Arab-Israeli War is bad.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

If the Ayn Rand Institute is anti-Paul then that is, indeed, lame, but Ayn Rand herself was a great ally of ours.


You apparently don't know much about Ayn Rand. She hated Libertarians. and Alan Greenspan is MOST DEFINITELY NOT OUR ALLY, and was a co-writer with her.

Why Did Ayn Rand hate libertarians so much
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12905.aspx
Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

"AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program. " - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians"

Ayn Rand was a troll, designed to cause division in the liberty movement, and it worked for awhile. That's why you find outright plagerism mixed in with complete idiocy and baiting.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

In fact, that is (or should) be the primary purpose of literature (and of all true art).

Yes, but we're not talking about art. We were talking about PHILOSOPHY, and specifically a philosophy that deals with objective facts.

The fiction section is not where the philosophy books are. And if you were being objective, you would have been reading Francis Bacon and actually learning from the real philosophy section.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Keep in mind Leinord Peikoff - a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan - :

That is based, on what, your subjective opinion?

Alan Greenspan wrote essays that are part of her books and newsletters. She attended his swearing in ceremony.

As Ayn Rand might say - you are evading facts.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

She was not part of the original neocon crowd obviously, though they did share a similar view towards foreign policy.

If you view them as separate movements. For those of us that see it as part of a greater zionist movement, it's hard to miss. Her racism extended beyond being against Arabs and bigotry against Christianity, her entire inner circle is all jewish. A little hard to accomplish if you are choosing friends based on intellect instead of genes.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The Ayn Rand Institute is a spurious representative of Ayn Rand's best qualities, her principles and her brilliance. Too bad there is no way to **thoroughly** discredit them short of Ms. Rand herself coming back from heaven to do so. :)

What principles? She plagerized. Her original first edition Atlas Shrugged is dedicate to her husband and the man she was cheating with, she went back and changed it and many of her other works to get rid of facts like that (for instance, her love of Nietzsche). She caused her followers to sign loyality oaths. It goes on and on.

So while we were discussing the lack of merits in plagerizing the first line in a book purported to be about ethics, if you want to talk about her principles - well, she had none. Neither did Alan Greenspan. They are two peas in the same pod.

So while I like some of the values both of them claimed to represent, I detest the fact that they were phonies.

As Francisco says in Atlas Shrugged - to paraphrase, welcome to a farce. Not a very amusing one if you are actually objective, enjoy being paid for work (instead of having it plagerized), like honest money (instead of receiving it printed like from Alan Greenspan), etc.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Also, she lived through the Russian Revolution so some alignment with cold warriors is to be expected.

The truth is she was part of the communist party, went to a university you could only go to if you were a communist, and worked for the Soviets for awhile doing research about Hollywood in preparation for the communist infilitration of it. Then she went to Hollywood, partly supported by her mother, who was a local communist leader.

She may have lived through the communist revolution, but she lived through it as a communist. She can claim she changed from being a communist if she wishes to do so, but the claim about 'suffering' isn't true in light of the above.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

This Yaron character may be a total scumbag, and Ayn Rand may have been hypocritical regarding war and collectivism,

She called her inner circle the collective. At one point, she was getting them to sign loyality oaths.

Couldn't it just be intentional and not accidentally hypocritical? That it was what she was trying to do? I mean, there is just too much of it for anyone that objectively reads the facts instead of self serving blurbs on the back of some of her books. I don't think Ayn Rand was an idiot, I think she had different goals.

Mozart was A Red - a parody of Rand about this very topic:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

[Occam's Banana]

Ayn Rand was a troll, designed to cause division in the liberty movement

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Ayn Rand, her works are one of the biggest reasons there *is* a liberty movement today.

Though I have never been an Objectivist, I myself (and many, *many* others) came into the movement directly via Ayn Rand.

So if she was, as you claim, "designed" to sabotage the liberty movement, then her "designers" were complete & utter incompetents.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes, but we're not talking about art. We were talking about PHILOSOPHY, and specifically a philosophy that deals with objective facts.

Yes, we *are* talking about art - because we are talking about Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand specifically sought to convey her philosophical positions & beliefs via literature.

Art, properly understood, is a means of illustrating & concretizing A) abstract facts about the nature of reality & existence, and B) attitudes about or assessments of those putative facts.

IOW: Art is a perfectly legitimate means of transmitting philosophical thought. It is no less legitimate in this regard than "straight up" philosophy texts.

If you disagree, well ... go tell it to Aristotle. ("The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.")


Having someone tell me I should go to the fictional section of the bookstore to learn the philosophy of objectivism, and fiction is by definition a subjective work - is surreal.


The fiction section is not where the philosophy books are.

No. What is "surreal" is allowing publishers & book retailers to decide for you what does & does not constitute "philosophy."

(And, per my comments above, fiction is NOT, "by definition", a "subjective work")

[Occam's Banana]

And if you were being objective, you would have been reading Francis Bacon and actually learning from the real philosophy section.

That is completely ridiculous.

By your "logic", the dialogues of Galileo, Berkeley, Hume, etc. should all be in the fiction section.

By your "logic", Francis Bacon had no business writing New Atlantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atlantis).

(OMG! What is this? "New Atlantis" ? Didn't Rand refer Galt's Gulch as "Atlantis" ?? :eek: Ayn Rand must have plagiarized Francis Bacon, too !!! OMG! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:)

[NiceGoing]

What principles? She plagerized. Her original first edition Atlas Shrugged is dedicate to her husband and the man she was cheating with, she went back and changed it and many of her other works to get rid of facts like that (for instance, her love of Nietzsche). She caused her followers to sign loyality oaths. It goes on and on.

So while we were discussing the lack of merits in plagerizing the first line in a book purported to be about ethics, if you want to talk about her principles - well, she had none. Neither did Alan Greenspan. They are two peas in the same pod.

So while I like some of the values both of them claimed to represent, I detest the fact that they were phonies.

As Francisco says in Atlas Shrugged - to paraphrase, welcome to a farce. Not a very amusing one if you are actually objective, enjoy being paid for work (instead of having it plagerized), like honest money (instead of receiving it printed like from Alan Greenspan), etc.

Where to begin, when smothered with tissues, no, a blanket, no a tsunami of heedless lies? Hmmm..
How about this: One of the most absurd of your accusations is surely that Rand was a Communist. ROFL! Please explain for us the Communist ideology to be found in this- her statement of ideology.....Thanks! :-)

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." ~Ayn Rand

[Tudo]

WHERE do these people shop for groceries? Perhaps they would not be so disrespectful if that information was published WIDELY on the net

[RickyJ]

I doubt Ron Paul is going to lose any sleep over this. He has the entire establishment attacking him yet he goes forward. Ron Paul is an true American hero.

[Occam's Banana]

I doubt Ron Paul is going to lose any sleep over this. He has the entire establishment attacking him yet he goes forward. Ron Paul is an true American hero.
I disagree with some (a lot ?) of your posts, but on this, you are 100% correct! Every. Single. Word.

[The Free Hornet]

You apparently don't know much about Ayn Rand. She hated Libertarians. and Alan Greenspan is MOST DEFINITELY NOT OUR ALLY, and was a co-writer with her.

You are dropping context. She had disagreements with factions of the liberty movement that took what was - in her opinion - the wrong approach. She admired people that would be identified with the liberatarian movement but not likely the Libertarian movement. She had problems with specific people, organizations, and specific positions. We see the same shit when elements of the campaign are discussed. BFD.

She was not a politician but a philosopher. She could burn bridges.


Ayn Rand was a troll, designed to cause division in the liberty movement, and it worked for awhile. That's why you find outright plagerism mixed in with complete idiocy and baiting.

Troll? Define! Designed by whom?

You made the "neoconservative" allegation which you declined to address. Why? How hard is it to define "neoconservative" and show us how it applies?



That is based, on what, your subjective opinion?

Alan Greenspan wrote essays that are part of her books and newsletters. She attended his swearing in ceremony.

As Ayn Rand might say - you are evading facts.

Leonard Peikoff was her self-named intellectual heir and heir to her estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff) and author of the definitive book about Objectivism (http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Rand-Library-Volume/dp/0452011019).


Ayn Rand said of these lectures: "Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff's course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism--that is, the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate."


My statement: "Leinord Peikoff [is a] a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan."

Your reply: "you are evading facts."

Until the facts back up your assertion (re Greenspan > Peikoff in regards the thought of Ayn Rand), you are going in the bucket. A full retraction with apology for wasting our time may suffice.

[Marky]

From Wikipedia’s entry for Leonard Peikoff:


Peikoff claims that Palestinian people prior to the establishment of the State of Israel consisted solely of "nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain," and that "the Arabs" today have no concept of property rights; indeed, that their "primitivist" antagonism to such rights is the root cause of Arab terrorism. He argues that Israel is a moral beacon which should not return any territory to Arabs or even negotiate with them.[citation needed] Peikoff notes that oil properties developed by western interests were confiscated by Middle Eastern regimes beginning with Iran in 1951. He advocates bringing an end to "terrorist states," especially Iran, "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States.[29]

In 2004 Peikoff endorsed John Kerry (despite thinking of Kerry as a "disgustingly bad" candidate) against George W. Bush (whom he called "apocalyptically bad"), on the basis of Bush's religiosity and his refusal to crush Islamic regimes, especially Iran, along with his "doomed" economic policies. In advance of the 2006 elections, Peikoff recommended voting only for Democrats, to forestall what he sees is a rise in influence of the religious right, adding:

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."[30]

In a 2010 podcast,[31] Peikoff explained why he supports immigration restrictions in the current context of the welfare state, and why he does not see this as a contradiction to Objectivism's general rejection of immigration restrictions.[32] Also, in a 2010 podcast, Peikoff explained that he does not support the building of a mosque near the "ground-zero" site in New York City, arguing that property rights are always contextual and that preventing the construction is a wartime necessity.[33]
[edit]

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

Supports nukes on Muslims, lies about Arab history, and (surprise surprise) he supports Israel. Somehow I’m not shocked. I wonder what his stance on the Federal Reserve is.

[rpwi]

The point of the starting post of this thread has been lost.

Yaron Brook and the other frauds at the so-called Ayn Rand Institute do not speak for Ayn Rand. If Ayn Rand were alive today, she herself would support Ron Paul just as she supported Goldwater in the election of 1964I disagree. She stated: "Libertarians are right wing hippies".

She was not for small government...she was for a cult of the ego.

[nbruno322]

You are dropping context. She had disagreements with factions of the liberty movement that took what was - in her opinion - the wrong approach. She admired people that would be identified with the liberatarian movement but not likely the Libertarian movement. She had problems with specific people, organizations, and specific positions. We see the same shit when elements of the campaign are discussed. BFD.

She was not a politician but a philosopher. She could burn bridges.



Troll? Define! Designed by whom?

You made the "neoconservative" allegation which you declined to address. Why? How hard is it to define "neoconservative" and show us how it applies?




Leonard Peikoff was her self-named intellectual heir and heir to her estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff) and author of the definitive book about Objectivism (http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Rand-Library-Volume/dp/0452011019).




My statement: "Leinord Peikoff [is a] a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan."

Your reply: "you are evading facts."

Until the facts back up your assertion (re Greenspan > Peikoff in regards the thought of Ayn Rand), you are going in the bucket. A full retraction with apology for wasting our time may suffice.

I am not trying to be divisive, but you are incorrect if you think Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand, or Yaron Brook don't or didn't have a neocon-esque foreign policy and view of the world with regards to the Middle East. Many of their words on the Middle East, Arabs, and Muslims sound like they could be regurgitations of Mark Levine, Pamela Gellar, or Bill Kristol.

The reason that foreign policy and the national security state is so important is that, like a cancer, it metastasizes into other policies that always grow government and shrink liberties....think of the NDAA, Patriot Act, assassination of American citizens without charges, and all the money and liberties we lose from undeclared and unconstitutional wars. There is a direct connection to the views on Middle East policy espoused by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand, or Yaron Brook and big government.

Ron Paul understands this and this is why he doesn't and will never compromise on a non-interventionist foreign policy. Its also one of the reasons I respect Dr. Paul immensely and shows his integrity. Its the same reason I won't compromise on it either and could never support someone like Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand, or anyone who espoused similar foreign policy views.

In addition to nurturing big government, their abhorrent views on Arabs both Christian and Muslim, are bigoted, patently false, and have no place in the so called liberty movement.

[The Free Hornet]

Posted too soo.

[The Free Hornet]

I am not trying to be divisive, but you are incorrect if you think Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand, or Yaron Brook don't or didn't have a neocon-esque foreign policy and view of the world with regards to the Middle East. Many of their words on the Middle East, Arabs, and Muslims sound like they could be regurgitations of Mark Levine, Pamela Gellar, or Bill Kristol.

You are moving the bar. I have opposed bigoted and divisive statements such as:


Randians have always been statists and warmongers.



In addition to nurturing big government, their abhorrent views on Arabs both Christian and Muslim, are bigoted, patently false, and have no place in the so called liberty movement.

Do you expect the fans of Ayn Rand to defend Yaron Brook, the ARI, or even Leonard Peikoff (Rand was clear that it was his course on Objectivism which she endorsed)? What else do you mean by the use of the word "or". "OR: A Boolean operator that gives the value one if at least one operand (or input) has a value of one, and otherwise has a value of zero." Are ALL the views of ALL three always wrong, always bigoted, always patently false? Or must they embrace religion?

Someone trolled earlier that she was a neocon because she was a "phoney":


Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a neoconservative since she is a phony.

That troll has been unable to provide a definition of neoconservative.

Are you up to the task of proving your assertions? You seem as if you want to boot certain people or views from the liberty movement but you have no specifics. Arabs are welcome but not Randians? Or is it that they have to check pro-Israel feelings at the door and embrace all cultures regardless of merit?

As an atheist, I would not apologize for her views on Christians or Muslims. Perhaps Rand ought not to have had a favorite in the conflict, but that is not the same as endorsing the agenda of AIPAC.

[nbruno322]

You are clearly a troll….as anyone who is reading this thread can see.

You are not addressing the obvious connection between the bigoted views of Middle Eastern people that Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Peikoff espouse and the similarities in rhetoric with many infamous neoconservatives.....and how those views lead to big government.

Additionally you are wasting people’s time with frivolous and childish things such as the definition of “or” , building up straw men arguments, and putting words in mine and others mouths.

You choose a demeaning avatar….as if paulbot is supposed to a good thing, and if it’s a joke its not funny.

You sir are no longer worthy of my time

[Occam's Banana]

You choose a demeaning avatar….as if paulbot is supposed to a good thing, and if it’s a joke its not funny.

Yeah, well, go tell it to the folks over here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?353901-Paulbot-Avatar-Released

[The Free Hornet]

You are clearly a troll….as anyone who is reading this thread can see.

I should be more cheerful when being labeled a Zionist. I don't care about Israel and if there is any Jewish blood in my family, it's news to me:


The Randians are basically neocon Zionists who are trying to co-opt the libertarian movement, just as a group of hardcore Zionist Jews co-opted the Republican Party and turned it into the Neocon Party. Their goal is the same as it's always been: to promote US wars for Israel and a general "clash of civilizations" between the West and the Islamic world.

So a prominent atheist is at the center of these Israel and teh book of Revelations stuff?


You are not addressing the obvious connection between the bigoted views of Middle Eastern people that Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Peikoff espouse and the similarities in rhetoric with many infamous neoconservatives.....and how those views lead to big government.

You missed the obvious point that I would discuss specifically the views of Ayn Rand and not those of everyone who sat at her feet.

Regarding bigotry and rhetoric, that is about all you have and there is no firm association between Ayn Rand and the neoconservative movement.

- different players
- different policies
- she wrote about Israel once:





Ayn Rand on Israel (http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnIsrael.htm)

Israel looms large in the ARI mind. A recent Google search for “Israel” on their website listed 214 pages. [1] Israel was not so important to Ayn Rand: there is only one mention of Israel in all her written work. It occurs in “The Lessons of Vietnam,” The Ayn Rand Letter, dated August 26, 1974 but – the Letter being behind schedule – written in May 1975. The essay is reprinted in The Voice of Reason, published after her death.

At the time she wrote this essay the U.S. had just abandoned South Vietnam, which immediately fell to the North Vietnamese, who were backed by communist China. We will examine her mention of Israel in a moment, but since she will use the slippery term “isolationism” we first quote an earlier paragraph to make her reference clear:

“Observe the double-standard switch of the anti-concept of ‘isolationism.’ The same intellectual groups ... who coined that anti-concept in World War II – and used it to denounce any patriotic opponent of America’s self-immolation – the same groups who screamed that it was our duty to save the world (when the enemy was Germany or Italy or fascism) are now rabid isolationists who denounce any U.S. concern with countries fighting for freedom, when the enemy is communism and Soviet Russia.”

Thus the Leftists, for such were all these “intellectual groups,” are inconsistent. They denounce the patriotic isolationists of WW II (Ayn Rand was one) and yet praise the new isolationists of the Cold War. In her next paragraph she castigates these new isolationists, and maintains that, contrary to them, the U.S. may properly aid another country if (to add a condition she makes elsewhere in the essay) such aid really is in the interests of America.

The next paragraph laments that this new isolationism plays on the American public’s legitimate anger over Vietnam, thus making the U.S. government afraid to get involved in foreign wars “not agreeable to Soviet Russia.” Now comes the part concerning Israel:

“The first intended victim of the new isolationism will probably be Israel—if the ‘antiwar’ efforts of the new isolationists succeed. (Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help—not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific.)”

The time she wrote the above, 1975, is important, because the context of her knowledge is important. And it turns out that that knowledge was incomplete and inaccurate. The above quote, as we shall show, is not Ayn Rand’s philosophy, it is an innocent misapplication of it.

Many times Ayn Rand praised isolationism in its old-fashioned, America First, sense. For example, in her essay “The Chickens Homecoming” (reprinted by her in The New Left) she attacked

“the premises that we owe a duty to the rest of the world, that we are responsible for the welfare of any nation anywhere on earth, that isolationism is selfish, immoral and impractical in a ‘shrinking’ modern world, etc.”

Her attack is applicable not only to Europe and Vietnam but to any country.

Evidently – for we believe Ayn Rand was consistent – in 1975 she thought that foreign aid to Israel was in the interest of the U.S., that it was not an act of national self-sacrifice.

Specifically, judging from her answers to questions at talks she gave around this time, she supported Israel for two reasons. She believed that without U.S. support, Russia – which was supporting the Arabs – would control the Mediterranean and its oil. And she saw the fight between Israel and the Arabs as a fight between civilized men and savages.

Could Ayn Rand have had a blind spot for Israel and a touch of bigotry (in particular among those that would side with the USSR)? Perhaps. None of this will prove the assertions against her on this board. That is why you must drag in ARI, Greenspan, Peikoff and Brook.

Of course, the thread was supposed to be about ARI and not Ayn Rand - so sorry if I have strayed. It was never appropriate for people to besmirch her for the words of an organization three decades after her death.

[NiceGoing]

Wow!. A beautifully reasoned, powerful post, utterly convincing in its arguments. (I think Ayn Rand herself would have admired it!)

+Rep, of course. :-)

[ProIndividual]

That's weird. Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist ... a very strict Constitutionalist.





So are you misquoting me in your signature to make others think I that misquoted Rothbard?

That's dishonest. An honest person would include the whole quote. Rothbard said it. I just quoted him.

I'm not misquoting you at all LIAR...their both direct copy and paste quotes. You asserted CLEARLY, OVER AND OVER, that Rothbard was NOT an anarchist, that he was a minarchist. Any moron with half a brain can see that isn't true, LIAR.

The whole quote was a long ass screed that has jackshit to do with the main point; that you deny Rothbard was an anarchist. Stop trying to cover up for your ignorance. You haven't read Rothbard's books. You misrepresent him because you hate anarchism. Go F yourself, LIAR.

AND BTW, I clearly said in what you just quoted, Mr. "I have no reading comprehension", that libertarians are minarchists AND anarchists, therefore Objectivists being for larger minarchy than libertarians (especially in the war department) hate our guts. Go read Rand's quotes on the subject if you think I'm wrong.

I hate liars more than anything, even thieves. Fraud is what lying is.