# Ayn Rand for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078 "2009-11-02T18:16:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/221 "2009-11-09T16:25:31Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Why is that a “stupid reason”? Ron Paul - the libertarian pin up boy - names his son RAND after her. Most libertarians you talk to think she wrote the equal of the Bible for their way of thinking. Why is that a “stupid reason” not to like what she spawned? Because you’re hating her for what someone else thinks, for starters. Why can’t you make up your own mind? What difference does it make whether libertarians are fascinated with her? ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/222 "2009-11-09T16:32:22Z")
Woah there. I am not letting others make up my mind. I tried to read an entire Rand book back in college and gave up deciding it was self centered crap. All I did was answer the question why so many people do not like Rand today: she helped give birth to a political and social philosoply that many people find repugnant. I do not find that to be a “stupid reason” but a very practical reason that makes lots of common sense. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/223 "2009-11-09T17:58:29Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Why is that a “stupid reason”? Ron Paul - the libertarian pin up boy - names his son RAND after her. Most libertarians you talk to think she wrote the equal of the Bible for their way of thinking. Why is that a “stupid reason” not to like what she spawned? So I assume that you believe Christ and the bible are evil because those inspired [Fred Phelps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church). On a side note, I find it amazing that you know her philosophy is repugnant even though you admit you haven’t finished one of her books. That is simply amazing, that you can judge a philosophy with out actually bothering to, ya know, read and understand it. Slee ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/224 "2009-11-09T18:16:11Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > On a side note, I find it amazing that you know her philosophy is repugnant even though you admit you haven’t finished one of her books. That is simply amazing, that you can judge a philosophy with out actually bothering to, ya know, read and understand it. You will find even more amazing that I find the philosophy repugnant althought I didn’t even start one of her books and I guess I will never read one. A complete waste of time, IMO. With the reasoning I might ask you whether you read “Das Kapital” before having an opinion on Marxism. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/225 "2009-11-09T18:42:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It is rather like the Roman Catholic position on the Bible before the translation of Scripture into the vernacular languages. It works out better if some official designate reads the dangerous work in question, and tells you what you need to know and think. I think its more like my position on Borat. I told everybody not to watch it because I wanted to save them the two hours of watching a really terrible movie that only had a few kernels of insight. Atlas Shrugged is a really long difficult read for what you get out of it and most of its content is crap anyways. ---
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/226 "2009-11-09T19:01:34Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > But if that is what Objectivism is about, then it doesn’t really say anything new does it? Well, that’s hardly \*all \*that Objectivism is about (see other posts in this thread who’ve said it better than I would). But it does seem like an awful lot of people claim to have problems with what seems to be to be a pretty self-evident idea (that doing things to advance yourself and those people, things, and ideas you value is morally superior to doing things to advance what you do _not_ value, out of force, coercion or guilt (with the caveat, of course, that you respect and protect others’ rights to do the same)). I don’t get it–why would any rational person sacrifice something they value for something they don’t value (or actively oppose)? When answering, please keep in mind that any sacrifice (including giving money–even money you couldn’t necessarily afford–to a church or charity, giving up an opportunity in favor of a loved one or friend, or even giving up your life for a friend/loved one/cause) is _not_ a sacrifice if they are important to you–because you are supporting a higher value (for you) at the expense of a lesser one. They are only immoral if you make them involuntarily, out of guilt, coercion, or other force. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/227 "2009-11-09T19:03:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you want some raw material for the “philosophy of Objectivism” I would focus on the last 100 pages of Atlas Shrugged (John Galt speaks), the rest of the book paints people who follow her philosophy as good and pure and everyone else as evil leeches. Thanks. I did just that. Also, I youtubed it and found a great video of someone reciting it (over the span of two videos). ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/228 "2009-11-09T19:20:01Z")
from Sleestak > [@](#): > > So I assume that you believe Christ and the bible are evil because those inspired Fred Phelps. The time difference between Christ and Phelps is about 2,000 years. I have no idea at all if what Christ believed is what Fred Phelps believes. Nor should anyone else with that much time in between and no real record made during the time of Christ of his life and teachings. Rand and the modern libertarians are from the same century. They drink from the same koolaid dispenser. I have engaged in enough discussions with libertarians and read their endless and tedious links to the Lew Rockwell sites to know full well they worship at the altar of Rand and there is much that she preached that appeals to them. Two peas in a pod you might say. winterhawk asks > [@](#): > > I don’t get it–why would any rational person sacrifice something they value for something they don’t value (or actively oppose)? It starts with the realization that a- I am not God or a god b- the world does not revolve around me c- I live in a society with other people and its not always about me me me me me ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/229 "2009-11-09T19:33:21Z")
**panache45** (or **Sam** , or anyone else who knows), it seems that the most glaring fault of Rand’s philosophy is that, like Marxism, it doesn’t allow for the realities of human nature. This is most evident to me in her belief that man should act according to what his rational and objective mind tells him at all times. To me this seems to advocate that we become a nation of virtual Spocks, acting at all times out of emotional detachment and using only logic and rationality to guide our behavior. But IMO this would rob us of many of life’s most enjoyable moments because, to me at least, some of life’s most enjoyable moments are when it becomes possible to act on a whim or to fulfill a dream of some sort. So I’m thinking that people must have challenged her about this and I’m wondering what her response was. Another thing I find confusing (and I know very little about Rand; until a few months ago I knew virtually nothing about her) with regard to an objective viewpoint is the case referred to upthread where, in _Atlas Shrugged_, a character gives financial aid to someone not because they’re suffering but because they “don’t deserve to.” But to me, “deserving” is a subjective call, not an objective one. So I’m also wondering how does Rand’s philosophy deal with this seeming contradiction? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/230 "2009-11-09T19:41:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, let’s see how this amazing insight works, ehe? A lot of what Jesus said can be boiled down to two things: Love the Lord your God, and almost as important Love your neighbor as yourself. Ayn Rand read this to mean that the church thought we should love our neighbor MORE than ourselves. I don’t think the catholic church or any other church expects you to starve your own children to feed the children of others but that is exactly how Ayn Rand portrays religion. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/231 "2009-11-09T19:48:46Z")
**Damuri Ajashi** , is John Galt an immoral person? Rearden? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/232 "2009-11-09T19:50:45Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I find the anti-Rand zeolots who can be bothered to correctly explain her philosophy a little more disturbing. I can explain Marxism to someone without going off on a tirade about it. > I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time when I was about 35. I’m no litterary critic, but while I found the story interesting enough, the telling of it was long-winded, pedantic and tedious. The characters were one dimensional and difficult to relate to. Francisco is so effortless excellent at everything. Dagny has a one track mind (no pun intended). Reardon is the ultimate magnanimous industrialist. Etc, etc. Everything is very black and white. > > Having read the book, however, Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is not “get what you can, be a selfish prick and screw everyone else”. > > Her philosophy is basically that all wealth is generated by producers. People who make a decision to use their skills to go about building or inventing or gathering raw materials and converting them into products and services people use (or the people who work for them productively). Rand believes that people have a right to the fruits of their labor. They cannot be coerced against their will to work for someone else and the fruits of their labor cannot be taken from them without their consent. > > One metaphore I have read on Objectivism goes something like this: > > If **gonzomax** mugged you in the street, everyone would say that is wrong. > > What about if he hired someone to threaten you with a gun unless you gave him your valuables? > > What if that someone was a police officer? > > What if, instead, the government demanded you hand over your valuables under the implied threat of an armed police officer and then gave those valuables to **gonzomax**? > Rand did not believe in any form of wealth redistribution. She felt it was punishing the successful and competant in order to reward the corrupt and lazy. If you feel like donating to the poor, that’s your business, but in her philosophy, the poor benefit when people build successful companies that produce the goods and services they need. > > She was also a proponent of creative destruction. Businesses that could not sustain themselves should go out of business. > > Anyhow, I think that’s the gist of it. How much people tend to buy into her theories largely depends on how much people ascribe success to individual internal factors as opposed to external circumstances. That’s a pretty sanitized description of the philosophy as I understand it. It sort of shows objectivism in the best light possible don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/233 "2009-11-09T19:58:07Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think the catholic church or any other church expects you to starve your own children to feed the children of others but that is exactly how Ayn Rand portrays religion. She wasn’t that extreme (“starve your own children”). According to the interviews I linked to earlier, she simply felt that one shouldn’t put the needs of others before those of their own. In other words, if you had food for your kids in the pantry but still were having trouble paying the rent or electric bill, you should put those needs above charitable acts for others. I’ve known people in that very circumstance who still tithe 10 to 20 percent of their gross income to the church, and it was that kind of thing that Rand objected to. She also didn’t feel that people should help others out of a sense of obligation or due to societal pressure. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/234 "2009-11-09T19:58:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > My name is **'luc** , and I’m a recovered Objectivist… _(Hi, **luci**!)_…\*\* 'luc\*\*, actually\*…(Sure thing, **'luci!** \*)…whatever… > > _Intelligence as virtue:_ A gross canard. Intelligence isn’t a virtue, it is a characteristic, no more a virtue than being tall or freckled. One does not earn anything by being born intelligent any more than one earns something by being born rich. Hence, it follows that a system of values that rewards intelligence as extra license to gain more than one’s fellows is not rewarding a virtue but a mere characteristic, one might as well reward being tall, or blonde. > > Enough, for now, I’m a terribly busy fellow. And, frankly, thinking about this horrid witch depresses me, I need a nice cup chamomile tea, a bit of P.G. Wodehouse, perhaps, recover my natural whimsy… I hear a lot of Rawls in your arguments. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/235 "2009-11-09T20:02:48Z")
Beware of any philosophy or “ism” where you have to learn whole new meaning for words you thought you knew what they meant but never quite did. Beware of any philosophy or “ism” in which you have to learn the special meanings for some new unique words that were coined just so this special “ism” can make sense because the English language did not hold anything that quite fit it before. Beware of any philosophy or “ism” that uses a long series of logical proofs to show you that A is really Z and two plus two is really five and if you don’t believe it then come up with your own proofs and show I am wrong. Rand and the libertarians fit all those warnings. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/236 "2009-11-09T20:14:34Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > She also didn’t feel that people should help others out of a sense of obligation or due to societal pressure. Generically, she seemed to desire - rather like the communist movements - that humans comport themselves like living platonic ideals, rather than the messy, complicated hierarchy and social group obsessed former savannah chimps that they are. Frankly don’t see the need for Rand and Objectivism, old style liberal thought is rather more flexible and realistic when it comes to real human nature - versus queer idealisations. No need for some weird supposed capitalist inversion of Russian style Leninist thought. ---
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/237 "2009-11-09T20:15:58Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > f > It starts with the realization that > a- I am not God or a god > b- the world does not revolve around me > c- I live in a society with other people and its not always about me me me me me You know, I don’t get annoyed when people criticize Rand. Heck, I do it myself. I love a good discussion, especially with people who don’t agree with me. That’s how we fight ignorance. But it does irk me when people seem to actively TRY not to get it. Maybe I’m not being clear enough in what I’m trying to say, and if so, I apologize. Let me try some examples. In each case, please consider what you think to be the rational response. If you disagree with me about which is the rational response, please be so kind as to give me rational reason for choosing the second one. 1. Two children fall through the ice in a pond. You can save one, but not the other. If you try to save both, all three of you will die. You can’t give your life to save both. It’s one or the other. Who do you save: your own child or a stranger? 2. You have the opportunity to give money to a cause. Do you choose one that you support, or one that you’re opposed to, in the latter case because your spouse supports it and is making you feel guilty? 3. You have done something at work that results in a huge savings for the company and will lead to a bonus. Do you take credit for it, or do you give credit to your rival, who’s always trying to verbally sabotage you behind your back, because he needs the bonus money more than you do? I can come up with these examples all day. I realize real life is more complicated than this, but do you understand that Rand isn’t about “me me me” as much as she’s about rational people making rational choices while respecting each other’s right to do likewise? Rand doesn’t say it’s immoral to give up your own wants for others–IF the others are valuable to you (your children, spouse, friends, people you admire, etc). Only that it’s immoral to sacrifice a GREATER value (as you define it) to a LESSSER one. Do you see the distinction? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/238 "2009-11-09T20:22:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The miracle of compounded interest doesn’t just _ **happen;** _. Oh but it does. I am no financier by any stretch of the imagination and over the last 20 years, I could have earned you a 5% compounded growth rate with absolutely no trouble at all. Sure Warren Buffett would have done better but there are plenty of rich hedge fund managers who have not averaged much more than 5% on their assets undermanagement over their lifetime. There are plenty of rich bankers who became rich by securitizing mortgages or speculating on them. The financial profession generally is not made up of Warren Buffetts, it is made up of smart hard-working folks with great pedigrees who make millions a year for working about as hard as that single mother that lives down the street from you. They add much more value to society by preserving and allocating capital but they are not really that much more productive than a hardworking assembly line worker. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/239 "2009-11-09T20:27:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That’s a pretty sanitized description of the philosophy as I understand it. It sort of shows objectivism in the best light possible don’t you think? Maybe. No one has really stated what they think is the worst part of Objectivism is. Just that they don’t like it. As it happens, I was also reading the book [Outliers](http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922)around the same time I was reading Atlas Shrugged. One thing that I think Objectivism seems to fail to take into account is the effects of environment on a person’s success. Not everyone can be Hank Reardon. But a lot of people can be relatively successful and productive with a bit of help. > [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Beware of any philosophy or “ism” where you have to learn whole new meaning for words you thought you knew what they meant but never quite did. Beware of any philosophy or “ism” in which you have to learn the special meanings for some new unique words that were coined just so this special “ism” can make sense because the English language did not hold anything that quite fit it before. Beware of any philosophy or “ism” that uses a long series of logical proofs to show you that A is really Z and two plus two is really five and if you don’t believe it then come up with your own proofs and show I am wrong. > > Rand and the libertarians fit all those warnings. Really? Because everything I read about Rand or Objectivism says the exact opposite. If anything, John Galt uses a long series of logical proofs to show you that A is really A. The whole philosophy seems to be against creating new meanings or creating complex philosophies to obfuscate. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > To me this seems to advocate that we become a nation of virtual Spocks, acting at all times out of emotional detachment and using only logic and rationality to guide our behavior. But IMO this would rob us of many of life’s most enjoyable moments because, to me at least, some of life’s most enjoyable moments are when it becomes possible to act on a whim or to fulfill a dream of some sort. I think that’s perfectly fine until someone else has to pay for you to act on your whims or fulfill your dreams. If you have a particular dream to do something, you should use logic and reason to plan a path to get yourself there. Not wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/240 "2009-11-09T20:28:35Z")
Why is it “wrong” in the eyes of Rand and her followers to also balance those considerations with what is “right” for others in society as well? I think that is the key here. Winterhawk - I do not know how to answer questions 1 and 3 because none of that stuff has even happened to me. I can answer #2 for you. I have given to United Way charities and in doing so I understand that my money goes for scores if not hundreds of different charities, some of which I may have no particular love for or interest in. I do so however, in the belief that there is a greater societal good in my donation that outweighs any slight annoyance I may have with a specific recipient. I do not expect to have things my way all the time. I am not that egocentric or self important. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=13)