# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/441 "2009-11-11T20:05:45Z")
Thank you Elucidator. I have never been to Freedonia either but it sounds like a Marxist paradise. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/442 "2009-11-11T20:06:00Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Not at all. the “pompous ass” - to use your characterization - would be one like yourself who was taught, did learn, and then made a intentional choice to chuck it all and unlearn what they were taught. that is not the fault of the school, the government, the teacher or anyone else but you. Take responsibility for your own willful ignorance resulting from your own willful decisions and choices. Consider the following 2 sentences: “I took trig in school and passed the class but I unlearned it all.” “I took trig in school and passed it but I can’t say I really learned it.” Which sentence sounds like a pompous ass and which one sounds humble? Get real. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/443 "2009-11-11T20:23:09Z")
You get real. 1- you were instructed in a particular subject matter. 2- you learned enough to pass a series of comprehensive tests in that subject matter. 3- you then made a intentional decision to dump all that you had learned. 4- now it is your position that you never learned anything? Take responsibility for your own decisions and the consequences of your own decisions. It is painfully obvious that you know precious little about the profession of education, how it works, how students learn and know even less about the separate concepts of learning and retaining and later being able to apply what you have previously learned. In any discussion, the first thing I want to know is does this person really know what they are talking about or are they just talking out of their ass. You have answered that question clearly and without any ambiguity. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/444 "2009-11-11T20:25:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well, I think Goldman Sachs does a lot more than loot the economy, I used to work for them. They are responsible for some of the innovations that have made our global economy possible. Pound for pound, the people that work there have probably created more wealth than any other large organization in the world. The people that work there are invariably smart, hard working and focused on making money. We need firms like Goldman Sachs, what we don’t need is a nation full of people with the mentality you see there. My post was not meant to be a commentary on Goldman Sachs or the finance industry. It was a response to the characterizations that people like **elucidator** make of those companies. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/445 "2009-11-11T20:25:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > how does Galt feel about stealling your money to educate someone else’s children? > > … > , I’m trying to figure out if I can steal your money to pay for the education of strangers. First off, you and I can’t progress on this topic because we disagree on what “education” fundamentally means. I’m not going to beat that word to death because it won’t change your mind. To answer your question, Rand would feel it’s immoral to steal money to educate someone else’s child. But you can’t just stop the train of thought right there. You have to dig deeper and realize that “someone else’s” child could and would get an education without having to steal money. If education is truly that important (and it is), people will voluntarily find a way to teach children. Anyways, my earlier response was mainly trying to soften the reaction of people thinking Rand didn’t want children “educated.” That distasteful reaction is largely based on #1) believing that govt form of education is effective and #2) govt schooling is the only type that will teach. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/446 "2009-11-11T20:27:34Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > This is all well and good but when you just stick to discussing big-picture ethical values for the average person, but you can’t possibly take the next step rationally and extrapolate that to value to come up with an ‘objective value’ for things. The market dictates the value based on circumstances (such as supply and demand) but at the edges, there will always be people who rationally value that object differently. The market is an arbiter that comes up with a consensus. Value, just like morals, are highly dependent upon the individual and their circumstances. This becomes readily apparent when discussing objects that humans **need to survive**. When an individual is faced with extreme discomfort or the death of themselves, or someone they value, the calculus changes. The market value isn’t the rational value anymore. Period. In the case of an extremely wealthy person the situation is reversed. Using the example of the milk and the starving neighbor - if in your own personal situation, a container of milk is practically worthless (to you) because you have 300 others - you’re giving up very little perceived value. That individual transaction is entirely dependent upon the circumstances and context of the individuals involved. Sure the milk is still made up of the same stuff. A still equals A. But the moment you involve disparate people into the equation, it changes everything. And when you don’t have an objective value for things, the objectiveness of your values falls apart. I suppose that worded a bit poorly, but I think you get my drift. These rules are all fantastic from the perspective of ‘the average person’. But if you turn the equation around - if you’re the starving person who made a couple of bad choices, or was a bit unlucky, or was taken advantage of - what do those scenarios look like to you? Again, this ‘system’ only works if everyone involved is equal in every way possible by eliminating the extremes at either end. And you cannot do that without wealth redistribution. So either I suck at this (which is entirely possible) or, taking Rands own arguments far enough, she is arguing against herself. I wasn’t even talking about “market value,” in the sense of price or cost; that’s not exactly the same meaning of the word “value,” and it gets way too complicated to even discuss it here. But about that starving person . . . it’s especially necessary for him to have objective, rational values. If he’s being objective, he sees the reality of his situation and doesn’t evade the facts or his own responsibility. Objectivity and reason demand that he make choices that further his well-being and that of his family. So, to the extent that he is able, he buys food and shelter and clothing for his family. A non-objective, irrational person would not look at reality, not asses the facts and devise a realistic strategy based on realistic values. He would evade his family’s needs and spend his money based on his feelings or whims . . . on things like drugs or movie tickets or a new hat. Since his values are inconsistent with reality, they are nonobjective. So is a new sports car an objective value? For a man who can afford it, it is. He’s not evading any facts of reality to buy it. But to a starving man it’s a non-objective value. He’s evading the fact that he can’t afford it and needs the money for other things. So just because a value depends on the circumstances, it can still be objective, i.e. consistent with the facts of reality. The actual “market value” is irrelevant here. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/447 "2009-11-11T20:37:56Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Take responsibility for your own decisions and the consequences of your own decisions. Ok, I absolutely take responsbility for “unlearning” all those subjects. Happy now? But I repeat again, if I say “I unlearned it”, I’m going to come across sounding like a pompous ass. No respected and educated person would utter “I unlearned it” ; it sounds like a cheezy cop out. > [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > It is painfully obvious that you know precious little about the profession of education, how it works, No sir, it is you (even with your 34 years of teaching experience) that knows precious little about the true purpose of public school and education. In a previous thread about schools, you dismissed the importance of feedback and suggestions from parents & children – the very CUSTOMERS of the school that pay taxes and teacher salaries! ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/448 "2009-11-11T20:39:09Z")
from Ruminator > [@](#): > > First off, you and I can’t progress on this topic because we disagree on what “education” fundamentally means. I’m not going to beat that word to death because it won’t change your mind. Unless you are intentionally adopting a definition of EDUCATION that is unusual or skewed because you are trying to craft something that is different than the standard definition, we should very quickly be able to agree on what education means. I have a Mac computer that has an application to give you instant definitions… here it is for EDUCATION > [@](#): > > The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction especially at a school or university. That is virtually the same as my dogeared copy of The American College Dictionary which defines it on page 383 \*the imparting or acquisition of knowledge or skill \* You are confusing long range retention or application with learning and education. They are very different things. Like Robert DeNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER “This is this, this isn’t something else. This is this.” It matters not to me if you want to come off like a pompous ass or not. That label is in your head and you put it there so you nailed yourself to that cross. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/449 "2009-11-11T20:51:09Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > \*the imparting or acquisition of knowledge or skill \* > > You are confusing long range retention or application with learning and education. Holding on to facts for a few months to pass a unit test is not “acquisition of knowledge.” I like the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education) definition of education: “\*Education in its broadest sense is any act or experience that has a **formative effect** on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual. \*” Holding on to facts for a few months to pass a unit test is not “a formative effect” on the mind. Ah but in **haymarketmartyr** lingo, the student actually _“acquired”_ and then _“un-acquired”_ it. The student experienced a _“formative effect”_ but then de-experienced it which then had an _“un-formative effect”_. “unlearned”, “unacquired”, “unformative”. Very clever use of the prefix “un” > [@](#): > > It matters not to me if you want to come off like a pompous ass or not. That label is in your head and you put it there so you nailed yourself to that cross. You introduced the word “unlearn” and it seems like a convenient way to dodge the fact that students never really learn these subjects. You won’t admit that anyone using your phrase “I unlearned X” will sound like an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/450 "2009-11-11T21:03:21Z")
The only one sounding like an idiot is you for not facing the reality of your own choices and accepting the responsibility for them. I have no idea why you have a problem with me using the word UNLEARN. It is a perfectly fine word in the dictionary. My computer dictionary defines it as > [@](#): > > “to discard from ones memory” My copy of the American College Dictionary defines UNLEARN as > [@](#): > > “to put aside from knowledge or memory” both are perfect fits for what you described that you would do with the learning of language words. You were instructed in something. You learned something. You learned enough to pass comprehensive tests on what you were taught. Then you decided to get rid of what you had learned. You unlearned what you had been taught and previously learned. Check the dictionary - its there. Of course, maybe you have some special libertarian dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/451 "2009-11-11T21:15:16Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > You learned enough to pass comprehensive tests on what you were taught. Forgot about this line prevously. A 34-year veteran teacher should know that it’s very possible to not “learn” a subject and still pass a comprehensive test. Virtually all high school mathematics is set up that way. Students go through the motions of mechanical calculations and moving variable X and Y around but they never “learn” it. Mechanical manipulation of equations is good enough to pass a test but not good enough to be considered to have truly learned it. Other educators have written dozens of papers about mathematics education reform to try to resolve this failing. This is not even an issue of “unlearning” as you put it. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/452 "2009-11-11T21:26:36Z")
If you want to wear the self imposed labels of “pompous ass” and “idiot” on your chest, thats up to you. Perhaps you can now add “intellectually dishonest” and make a trilogy? Here is what you said originally > [@](#): > > A teacher could make me memorize 100 Russian words to pass a unit test next week. Ok, I do that and then forget the words next year. Was I “taught” Russian? No, because I had no real reason to learn it. Now you want to talk about mathematics? Again, you are not a trained educator and it shows quite clearly. You are confusing long range retention and application with learning something and then making the choice to “unlearn” it as I clearly showed you from two different dictionary definitions. This gets to the usual libertarian game of three card monty where definitions are not what you thought they were and you have to learn something completely new to understand their point. And then you have to follow a convoluted line of reasoning that goes something like ‘well this is actually almost this, and is nearly closer to this, and then that could happen, and if it does might lead to this, and then you have something close to this, and then is just what I said it was’ and that is why A is actually Z. We have heard it all before. Check your dictionary. Look up LEARN. Look up UNLEARN. Look up EDUCATION. Look up TEACH. Its not at all difficult. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/453 "2009-11-11T21:29:51Z")
from Ruminator > [@](#): > > A 34-year veteran teacher should know that it’s very possible to not “learn” a subject and still pass a comprehensive test. You being the acknowledged expert on education and learning and all, perhaps you can explain how a person could indeed pass a comprehensive test on new material not previously known to them if they had not learned anything from teaching the material that was on the test? This should be good. But again, I only have a Masters in Education and taught for 34 years so I am eager to learn even more from the acknowledged expert. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/454 "2009-11-11T21:38:42Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Check your dictionary. Look up LEARN. Look up UNLEARN. Look up EDUCATION. Look up TEACH. Its not at all difficult. I did and I also clarified your own cited definitions back to you. You emphasize the ceremony of schooling: I prepared them to pass a test and then they unlearned it. I emphasize what’s actually in the brain. That’s where we differ. In any case, I’m not blaming the teacher. I never did. The student is at fault. I agree on that. If the student wants to “unlearn” it as you say, then it’s more evidence that Rand was right forcing people to pay for this type of learning/unlearning education. > [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > , perhaps you can explain how a person could indeed pass a comprehensive test on new material not previously known to them if they had not learned anything from teaching the material that was on the test? This tells me you haven’t read a single report about the inadequacies of the curriculum, the testing methods, and the unpreparedness of high school graduates for college work. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/455 "2009-11-11T22:03:35Z")
Rand had no idea what she was talking about and neither do you as you have so wonderfully demonstrated by hanging yourself with your own rope. Here is a tip for you. Very few people talk about “government schools”. I have been to countless educational conventions, seminars, conferences, workshops and other related gatherings. Because I was both the school union representative as well as a classified “Master Teacher” I went to far more than my share. Never once at any of them did anybody ever use the term “government schools”. And at many of these assemblies were representatives from private schools and even home schools. Nobody uses the term “government schools”. Oops. My error. Anti-government crusaders with an ideological axe to grind use the term. Anytime somebody starts talking about education and you hear the term “government schools” followed by seat of the pants criticism its almost always a libertarian doing the talking. > [@](#): > > I emphasize what’s actually in the brain. That’s where we differ. Here is a news flash for you. What is in the brain at given moment in time is different than what may be in the brain at a different moment in time. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? Why do you insist on intentionally confusing the concept of learning with idea of long range retention and application. Are you making a decision to be obtuse about this subject? Is this you getting your back up and saying “I am going to show this teacher I know more about education that he does”? > [@](#): > > If the student wants to “unlearn” it as you say, then it’s more evidence that Rand was right forcing people to pay for this type of learning/unlearning education. Rand is a fool if she believed that she can change the way people learn and unlearn things for all of history. That is simply a part of human nature and we all do it - even your precious Ayn Rand. If you believe she retained every bit of information and data she ever learned then you really do need help. What the hell does that mean “forcing people to pay for this type of learning/unlearning” That has no meaning at all. > [@](#): > > This tells me you haven’t read a single report about the inadequacies of the curriculum, the testing methods, and the unpreparedness of high school graduates for college work. You know very little about me and you know even less about my views about such matters. Not only have I read such critical reports but I have helped write some of them. I am a very vocal critic of the curriculum, testing methods and lots of other things having to do with education. You know nothing of what you speak. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/456 "2009-11-11T22:13:20Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > You know very little about me and you know even less about my views about such matters. I know because you admitted you weren’t aware of how a student could pass a test without learning the material. Because of that gap and also your previous dismissal of student&parent critique, I wouldn’t be so quick to repeatedly mention the “THIRTY FOUR YEARS” of teaching experience. That doesn’t help your credibility at all. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/457 "2009-11-11T23:13:27Z")
You are showing yourself very worth of those labels of pompous ass and idiot that you want to apply to yourself. So explain how a student can pass a comprehensive test in a subject on new material that they previously did not know and pass it without learning what was on the test? And cheating does not count. Still waiting… still waiting … paint dries faster than you answer. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/458 "2009-11-12T00:14:59Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > So explain how a student can pass a comprehensive test in a subject on new material that they previously did not know and pass it without learning what was on the test? And cheating does not count. I already explained it before. The student scribbles mechanical rules on the test that their teacher showed them last week. If you call that “learning”, then I guess I can’t argue with you. However, that is such a very low standard for “learning” that it’s **meaningless**. Here is a simple 7th grade algebra equation (not even trigonometry): \*\*y = 3x \*\* You can “teach” a child to move symbols around mechanically to solve for x. For example, the child “learns” to move the 3 to the left side of the equals sign so that it takes the form y/3 = x He can then memorize this mechanical step to pass a test. He can memorize dozens of these type of rules to pass a “comprehensive” test. This is how many students putter along. So did the child actually “learn” anything? Some would say yes. But is that the point? The real goal is to learn learn Algebra. Just memorizing the rule to move the 3 from the right side to the left side is NOT learning algebra. If the child truly learned algebra, the following simple question should not trip him up: \*“Is it possible for y and x to have the same value in the equation y = 3x ?” \* Or here’s another easy question: _“Which variable is bigger? Is x bigger than y? Or is y bigger than x? How can you tell?”_ If the child cannot answer these questions (that probably weren’t on the drills or tests), many math professors and educators would say he DID NOT understand or learn algebra EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW HOW TO MECHANICALLY MOVE THE 3 FROM THE RIGHT SIDE TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE EQUALS SIGN. When you show somebody how to mechanically move symbols around, it’s a similar situation to [Searle’s Chinese Room](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room). You can “teach” a computer to mechanically move the 3 from one side of the equation to the other but that DOES NOT mean the computer understands algebra. It does not mean the computer has “acquired” the skill of algebra (notwithstanding various definitions of “artifical intelligence”). Right now next door in IMHO, there’s a “Math Teacher” thread. Here are some actual quotes from that thread: > [@](#): > > Math, to me, was a ridiculous bunch of grunt work made up by some evil wizard just to torture me. I mean, I had to take one number and use some bizarre and arbitrary system to turn it into another number…to what ends? > … > So I limped along. I never learned the basics. I never really cared to learn the basics. > … > Homework was a trial for me. I’d copy when I could, make stuff up when I couldn’t. > … > I’d limp through the tests and pray to pass. > … > I had to cram math to take the GREs, and another one… > [@](#): > > Now in teaching math at the college level, I found a lot of what you describe. Students coming in having forgotten (if they ever knew) their HS math. What do you think “if they ever knew” means? If you think it’s impossible for students to pass a test without understanding the material, you are either willfully ignorant or you have a ridiculously low standard of what “learning” is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/459 "2009-11-12T03:02:15Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yep, and now you understand the problem some people have with her. I’ve always understood that. So what? Most people are wrong about a lot of things. Anyway, we’re just trying to determine what her philosophy is in this thread. I’m not really interested in what anyone thinks of it. > [@](#): > > I am not a philosopher but I have read a little bit of John Rawls and I find his views on justice a decent framework for morality (or at least for a just society and I guess I am just assuming that a just society is probably a moral society). The way that most people apply Objectivism is very very subjective. We’re just trying to determine what her philosophy is in this thread. I’m not really interested the way most people apply Objectivism. I’m not sure why you keep harping on that. Start a separate thread if you want to discuss that subject. > [@](#): > > For example, today is Veteran’s Day. We remember and honor people for their sacrifice to this country. In some cases, their sacrifice leads to suffering by their own family for the sake of the safety of people they have never even met. Is it immoral because these men and women have made sacrifices that are not in their self interest. It matters not that they did so voluntarily. Ayn Rand’s morality does is not merely about people having choices. her Morality dictated that specific choices be made. A choice to follow the mystics of religion and socialism was immoral while a choice to follow the “mind” was moral. So When a citizen decides that they will risk their life and expose their family to pain and suffering for the sake of people who they have never met, wouldn’t that be immoral according to Rand? Depends on the circumstances. > [@](#): > > Wait a minute didn’t she think wealth redistribution was immoral. Doesn’t (almost?) every government redistribute wealth through taxing and spending? I don’t know why it’s so difficult to understand the difference between REQUIRING others to give away some of their wealth and deciding that it is better to pay your taxes (even if you don’t think you should have to) and spending years in jail. Objectivists don’t require someone to choose the bullet when a thief puts a gun to his head and says “your money or your life”. Money can be replaced. Life cannot. > [@](#): > > By paying taxes isn’t she making herself other people’s slave. Isn’t THAT immoral according to Rand? Rand was about more than free choice and non-coercion IIRC, there were some choices you could make that were immoral even if you were harming noone. One of those immoral choices was to “enslave” yourself to the welfare of others. Isn’t going to jail making her someone else’s slave? It’s not like you can just decide to not pay taxes and then not have any other consequences. > [@](#): > > Yeah but he was anti-tax. That might have been enough to take the bad taste out of her mouth. No. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/460 "2009-11-12T03:17:18Z")
So we have Ruminator engage in the normal libertarian tactic of refusing to accept the standard normal definition of something because it does not enable him to twist it to fit his ideology. His alternative is to come up with is own peculiar “definition” which - surprise surprise - suddenly justifies his personal beliefs. And you wonder why the Libertarian party gets less than half of one percent in the national vote? Or is it you have a radically different definition for what constitutes “success”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=24)