Philosophy Monthly from Scars Publications

Ayn Rand still relavant?

>6/7/95 4:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time

>I noticed nothing on Rand as i read thru notices. are there still
objectivists out there?

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 6/8/95 11:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id:

She gets mentioned from time to time. Her views and philosophy are certainly
still relevant -- John Galt's radio address is still one of the most
inspiring libertarian-flavored tracts I have ever read (although I thought of
myself as a libertarian long before reading any of Rand's work). On the
other hand, she and other objectivists vehemently disowned libertarianism, so
it is not like she was ever one of the present movement's leading lights,
though her work did inspire many libertarians. MChermack,
what do you want to know or say about Rand?

-Jim Merritt
LP Forum Host
Capital Connection

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 9/2/97 12:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: XNFP
Message-id: <19970902041700.AAA05924@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Hi Jim :)
I just wanted to mention that not *all* Objectivists are against the
libertarian movement. There's an ongoing debate about this matter.
Personally, I'd go with the LP because their ideology comes closest to my
personal beliefs. I consider myself an Objectivist, despite the fact that I
don't think Ayn Rand was infallible, nor do I think the LP should be
condemned. Personally, I intend to use this forum to learn more about
libertarianism in general, while sharing with others what I have to share.
I thin it's interesting that many Objectivists maintain that Rand's
influence was the main influence on the emerging libertarian movement in the
1950's, yet Laissez-Faire books and other sources quote Rose Wilder Lane's
DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM (which I'm reading now) as the most influential
libertarian manifesto of that era. I can see clearly, having read half of
Lane's book so far, where and why the two women would have disagreed
vehemently;
when I've finished completely, I'll talk further about this. For those
Objectivists who maintain that Rand differed from other libertarians because
her political beliefs were based on a moral philosophy: Lane also comes from
a well-reasoned philosophical point of view, although it is different from
Rand's.

Steph

>>She gets mentioned from time to time. Her views and philosophy are
certainly still relevant -- John Galt's radio address is still one of the
most inspiring libertarian-flavored tracts I have ever read (although I
thought of myself as a libertarian long before reading any of Rand's work).
On the other hand, she and other objectivists vehemently disowned
libertarianism, so it is not like she was ever one of the present movement's
leading
lights, though her work did inspire many libertarians. <

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 9/2/97 2:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MaryOhK
Message-id: <19970902060801.CAA12598@ladder02.news.aol.com>

libertarianism, so it is not like she was ever one of the present movement's
leading lights, though her work did inspire many libertarians.>>

It seems ridiculous to deny Rand's profound effect on the libertarian
movement and party since we derive the very principle we have to sign onto as
members from her work Atlas Shrugged.

Branden and others said Rand did not read widely and tended to snap
judgements and to painting people with a very wide brush. I remember reading
somewhere that the first two LP members she met were of a hippie anarchist
variety and this put her off from investigating further. Furthermore
Rothbard and her had already become enemies and he became very involved in
the party's founding. Unfortunately there was a very doctrinaire, intolerant
side
of her that led to quite a few purges in her movement and a cult-like
mentality that remains to this day.

All I can say is that I certainly came to libertarianism via Rand and so have
a majority of libertarians I have met. That doesn't necessarily make us
Objectivists or Randroids. Having taken some courses in Philosophy and
Political Science I was shocked to find out how crude and unoriginal she was.
There is little in Rand's philosophy you cannot find in Aristotle and Locke.
Still Jerome Turricille didn't call his history of the LP It
Usually Begins With Ayn Rand for nothing. Nor do I think you can find a more
powerful indictiment of socialism than the vignette from Atlas Shrugged
(reproduced in For the New Intellectual) telling the story of the Starne's
heirs who tried to put into action the dictum "from each according to his
ability; to each according to his needs"

I'm still coming to terms with Rand. Particularly as a political activist
and professional I'm trying to come to terms with the entire issue of
compromise.

I also found a particularly powerful critique of the basis of her (and our)
political philosophy by Joan Kennedy Taylor in the Spring issue of the
Association of Libertarian Feminists. Kennedy Taylor herself was a devotee
of Rand from the Nathaniel Brandan Institute era. The argument of her
article "Libertarianism and Violence" is rather too complex to reproduce
here. I would like to see it read and discussed by libertarians.
Basically it argues that taking as our starting point the nonagression
principle (one cannot initiate force for social or political ends) to derive
the just powers of gov't "leads us to posit the morality of retaliatory force
too easily" She fears a libertarian McVeigh. Too many libertarians, I've
come to believe, feel its immoral to take half a loaf, or work with people
who don't share all their beliefs, or work towards creeping libertarianism
or any form of gradualism. I fear that makes working within political
reality almost impossible. This too, is part of Rand's legacy.

I typed up the entire article to send to a fellow libertarian. If anyone is
curious just e-mail me I'd be more than happy to send it along. It certainly
made me think.

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 9/2/97 7:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: XNFP
Message-id: <19970902235700.TAA05234@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 02 Sep 1997 02:07:46 EDT
From: MaryOhK
Message-id: <19970902060801.CAA12598@ladder02.news.aol.com>:It seems ridiculous to deny Rand's profound effect on the libertarian
movement and party :since we derive the very principle we have to sign onto
as members from her work Atlas :Shrugged.

Branden also states, in his memoir, Judgement Day, that Rand probably had a
"profound influence" on the libertarian movement, and on the formation of the
libertarian party.

I think I would agree. I came to libertarianism through reading Rand (and
discussing her work with a good friend of mine); considering that Atlas
Shrugged is supposed to be the second most influential book in the world,
right after the Bible, I don't imagine that I'm in the minority."from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs"<

>>I'm still coming to terms with Rand. Particularly as a political activist
and professional I'm trying to come to terms with the entire issue of
compromise.<

As a believer in the ethics of self-interest, I never understood Rand's
position on compromise. Aren't there times when it would be in a person's
best interest to compromise rather than try to get their own way?

>>I also found a particularly powerful critique of the basis of her (and our)
political philosophy by Joan Kennedy Taylor in the Spring issue of the
Association of Libertarian Feminists. Kennedy Taylor herself was a devotee
of Rand from the Nathaniel Brandan Institute era. The argument of her
article "Libertarianism and Violence" is rather too complex to reproduce
here. I would like to see it read and discussed by libertarians.

Basically it argues that taking as our starting point the nonagression
principle (one cannot initiate force for social or political ends) to derive
the just powers of gov't "leads us to posit the morality of retaliatory force
too easily" She fears a libertarian McVeigh. Too many libertarians, I've
come to believe, feel its immoral to take half a loaf, or work with people
who don't share all their beliefs, or work towards creeping libertarianism
or any form of gradualism. I fear that makes working within political
reality almost impossible. This too, is part of Rand's legacy.

I typed up the entire article to send to a fellow libertarian. If anyone is
curious just e-mail me I'd be more than happy to send it along. It certainly
made me think.<

I'm definitely interested.

Steph

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 9/17/97 5:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <19970917213100.RAA23702@ladder02.news.aol.com>

"It seems ridiculous to deny Rand's profound effect on the libertarian
movement and party since we derive the very principle we have to sign onto as
members from her work Atlas Shrugged." -MaryOhK

Ahem. I signed and subscribed to that statement a full decade before reading
A.S. There are a lot of us who got our libertarianism from older sources
(and even independent synthesis!). Also, FDR had a profound effect on the
libertarian movement, but I doubt anyone would call him a "leading light" of
libertarianism. Rand's profound effect was much more positive, but I
wouldn't call her a "leading light" of libertarianism, either.

>>>Too many libertarians, I've come to believe, feel its immoral to take half
a loaf, or work with people who don't share all their beliefs, or work
towards creeping libertarianism or any form of gradualism. I fear that makes
working within political reality almost impossible.<<

In my own case, I have watched with great dismay, the kudzu aspect of big
government and bureaucracy. In my lifetime, and throughout as much recent
history as I have been able to study, it has seemed impossible to roll back
big government with a gradualist approach, because the political will cannot
be sustained in the face of innumerable, inevitable political, social, and
economic crises. Kudzu and government always grow back quickly after
being pruned just a little bit. You have to practically decimate a kudzu
plant to keep it from growing back immediately. Myself, I prefer gradual
change. I wish I knew of a way to get government to change long enough for a
truly significant gradual rollback to take place. But I am persuaded by my
own experience to favor Harry Browne's approach: massive cuts quickly seem
like the only way to get true relief in the long run. I say that with
great sadness, because I know how destabilizing such cuts can be.

-Jim Merritt
Libertarian Party Forum Host
AOL Politics Forum

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 9/2/97 11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970903031300.XAA14787@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Maybe there were some posts earlier in this thread, but I can't find any
beyond the last day or so. In any case, a few observations:

(1) I believe that it IS generally accurate to say that for most ideological
nonacademic libertarians today "It usually began with Ayn Rand". [For
academics it more frequently begins with Mises or Hayek or Friedman or one of
the various classical liberal or anarchist political theorists, etc.] The
reason for the influence of Rand on neophyte libertarians is obvious. She is,
after all, an intriguing and effective polemicist and is particularly
appealing to people who are at the age that they are just beginning to wake
to politics [adolescents]. It is certainly a mistake to try to do to Rand
what Rand tried to do to those closest to her - demand "purity" or denounce
her as "irrational and evil" just because she may have had some silly views.
Whether Rand liked it or not, much of what she had to say is fully compatible
with most forms of libertarianism, and is probably closest to the
variety of libertarianism [turning around noninitiation of physical force]
that has traditionaly dominated the LP.

(2) While most libertarians "begin with Ayn Rand" only a small percentage
remain transfixed on her as the end all and be all of philosophy, political
philosophy or economics. In fact, she is rather superficial in each of those
areas [as was Rothbard]. Rand's dogmatism was not just a personality defect
or an anamoly, it was a direct result of trying to maintain a number of
positions in these various areas that are built either on bare assertions
about the nature of this or that [usually "man qua man"] or on sematic
sleight of hand rather than real distinctions and defensible arguments. It
is not a result of a conspiracy or the results just of a biased
establishment that Objectivist philosophers, political philosophers or
economists have gained no significant reputation or distinction - the simple
fact is that they are espousing doctrines that make no sense, and their
colleagues know it.

(3) Having said the above rather critical comments, I would like to add that
I think that Rand's "psychological analysis" of collectivism and of the
personality types that create and maintain collectivist structures is exactly
right. It is amazing to me that her followers have more or less neglected
these aspects of her thought while attempting to "build on" those areas where
she has little or no merit as an original or profound thinker.

(4) Is Rand still relevant? Well, relevant to what? Should her fictional
writings and some of her nonfiction be recommended to prospective
libertarians - you bet they should. Should anyone be left with the impression
that Rand is a "major" libertarian author or that her works contain the "last
word" on most of the "technical" issues she addressed? You must be kidding.
Over forty years ago Henry Hazlitt, who was arguably one of the leading
libertarian publicist during the mid-20th Century, issued a book entitled A
Free Man's Library that contained summaries of approximately 450 libertarian
or libertarian-relevant books. Today the number would be nearer to 3,000
titles, including certain classics that Hazlitt missed and some newere
volumes that are breath taking in their analysis. The problem with the
orthodox Randian is not that he is a Randian after considering the
alternatives,
but that he has no idea what the alternatives are like. Indeed,
libertarianism has become so prevasive and extensive that few if any of us
have any idea of its present scope, let alone the details of libertarian
arguments in every field. Those who dispair of the "lack of progress" in
libertarianism, simply aren't looking in the right places.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 9/17/97 5:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <19970917211700.RAA16954@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>I just wanted to mention that not *all* Objectivists are against the
libertarian movement.<< -Steph/XNFP

Glad you stopped by! Of course, I never claimed that *all* Objectivists
opposed libertarianism, but I must say that we get our share of such
opponents in here. I am happy to make the acquaintance of someone who has
nicer things to say about libertarianism... :-)

-Jim Merritt
Libertarian Party Forum Host
AOL Politics Forum

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 6/8/95 5:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Nomoretime
Message-id:

You can still find Objetivist discussions on the Religion and Ethics forum,
but they usually don't involve politics.

-Nomoretime

Subject: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 6/8/95 6:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DarScott
Message-id:

Yes.

But I do wonder whether the role of Ayn Rand in the history of libertarianism
is sometimes overstated.

Subject: Re: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 4/22/97 9:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dfrankrob1
Message-id: <19970423002001.UAA22653@ladder01.news.aol.com>

I don't wonder at Ayn Rand's relevance. I still read her from time to time
just to "check
my premises." Although most of my thinking today is influenced by Rand by
implication.
I, of course, am solely responsible for those implications.

I stopped being an "objectivist" when Rand vs. Branden controversy became
public. I
remember feeling and thinking that Ayn Rand was presumptuous in assuming that
I
had any interest her personal romantic affairs. On the whole I came to
conclude that
Dr. Branden conducted him self more befitting of an Ayn Rand hero than she
did. It is
no coincidence that my son's middle name is Branden.

Still, she remains, IMHO, the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Subject: Re: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 4/23/97 1:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970423041200.AAA11954@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Just what philosophers did you have in mind in this comparison?
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 5/9/97 9:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dfrankrob1
Message-id: <19970510011400.VAA23434@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Didn't I respond to LAWECON's post already?

Well, in comparison to anyone you'd care to name. Although I place her at the
head of the class, I have found many other writer's very enlightening,e.g.,
Robert Nozick is very challenging; John Hospers is interesting; the
implications of Murray Rothbard's thinking has not been explored deeply;
George Smith is a masterful thinker. There are others.

Subject: Re: Re:Ayn Rand still relavant?
Date: 9/2/97 11:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: SofaNmbr1
Message-id: <19970903035300.XAA24926@ladder02.news.aol.com>

As a life long member of the LP, I have long been intrigued with the one way
rift between "Randists" and Libertarians. In fact I've gotten into some
heated debates (via e-mail) with some of those ardent objectivists until I
seemed to be getting the upper hand and they stopped communicating with me --
I suspect under the fradulent guise of "sanctioning my evil."

this page was downloaded to your computer