# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/501 "2009-11-13T14:13:39Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > You seem to be assuming that my self-interest is preserved regardless of the outcome of the war . . . that my life will continue as usual, regardless who wins. Assuming that I’m living in a relatively free country, being invaded by a less free country, that would not be the case. Not to speak for **elucidator** , but that’s not at all what I see him saying. He’s saying that as an individual, independent and objective and rational and all, it’s very likely the case that his individual contribution to a given war is negligible. The successful outcome of a war is driven by a collective effort, n’est pas? The rationally driven, self-interested position is to allow a bunch of other stupid suckers to give themselves over to the collective in defense of my own individual liberties. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/502 "2009-11-13T14:18:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But you could say that about any “do-gooder”, since no test can be applied to distinguish the “genuine” behavior from the “perverse”. Ms Rand has the privilege to create her characters to her whim, but how do the rest of us tell the difference? Mother Theresa was a rather spectacular example of this kind of person. Proclaiming one’s noble motives is actually a very common way of hiding one’s real motives not only from others but from one’s self as well. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/503 "2009-11-13T14:28:14Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The rationally driven, self-interested position is to allow a bunch of other stupid suckers to give themselves over to the collective in defense of my own individual liberties. But that is explicitly not an Objectivist position. In Objectivism, you do not deceive or manipulate others to gain a value. If you proclaim yourself to be a good citizen but are not willing to bear arms in defense of the nation (assuming you are physically able to do so), you are gaining a value under false pretenses. Seriously, talking to you guys about Ayn Rand is like trying to explain to a Christian fundamentalist that Wicca is not Satanism. ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/504 "2009-11-13T14:38:17Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Not to speak for **elucidator** , but that’s not at all what I see him saying. He’s saying that as an individual, independent and objective and rational and all, it’s very likely the case that his individual contribution to a given war is negligible. The successful outcome of a war is driven by a collective effort, n’est pas? You’re leaving out the fact that an Obhectivist would strive to be the best at what he does-- which means he’d be looking to rise through the ranks and be a leader. In that case, your contributions are magnified. In fact, you don’t even have to be an Objectivist to think like that-- it’s pretty common for people to think that way. Not to mention the increase in pay… > [@](#): > > The rationally driven, self-interested position is to allow a bunch of other stupid suckers to give themselves over to the collective in defense of my own individual liberties. An Objectivist doesn not expect others to live for (or die for) him. That would be a moocher. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/505 "2009-11-13T14:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > …If you proclaim yourself to be a good citizen but are not willing to bear arms in defense of the nation (assuming you are physically able to do so), you are gaining a value under false pretenses… Who said anything about proclaiming oneself to be a good citizen? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/506 "2009-11-13T14:47:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Who said anything about proclaiming oneself to be a good citizen? You think a parasite would be stupid enough not to at least try to hide his parasitism? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/507 "2009-11-13T15:50:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re leaving out the fact that an Obhectivist would strive to be the best at what he does-- which means he’d be looking to rise through the ranks and be a leader. In that case, your contributions are magnified. In fact, you don’t even have to be an Objectivist to think like that-- it’s pretty common for people to think that way. Not to mention the increase in pay… See, this is at odds with the education I’ve gotten from other SDMB threads on Rand. I thought the idea was to strive to be the best X you could be. That was the explanation for why Randian philosophy is not elitism. All the guys working in the factories are not peons, they are being the best wrench turner they could be. (There was some debate about a passage in which Rand seemed to suggest that they were toiling due to the beneficence of the Galt’s Gulf bunch, blurring the argument that they were respectable achievers versus mooching blue collar types, but we’ll set that aside for now). So I didn’t get the idea that everyone was to strive not only to be the best widget cutter, but also to be a leader. What if he does not strive to be a leader? Doesn’t striving to be a leader suggest that some people are expected to be followers? Or are there simply degrees of leaderness? But then someone will be the least leaderish, since not everyone can equally be a leader. I suppose as long as they are being the best leader they can be even when they are last in line is the answer. > [@](#): > > An Objectivist doesn not expect others to live for (or die for) him. That would be a moocher. So they do expect a collective effort may be required to defend ongoing indepedence? If they are all supposed to strive to be leaders, how do they carry out military efforts? Someone has to be the leaderest private, right? And if I think I’m the best leader, it’s important that I not also be the first one off the Higgins boat, because rationally my superior value is not best spent using up enemy rounds. My rational self-interest and efforts to be a leader conflict with my obeying someone else’s orders. ---
**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 13, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/508 "2009-11-13T16:11:36Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > See, this is at odds with the education I’ve gotten from other SDMB threads on Rand. I thought the idea was to strive to be the best X you could be. That was the explanation for why Randian philosophy is not elitism. All the guys working in the factories are not peons, they are being the best wrench turner they could be. (There was some debate about a passage in which Rand seemed to suggest that they were toiling due to the beneficence of the Galt’s Gulf bunch, blurring the argument that they were respectable achievers versus mooching blue collar types, but we’ll set that aside for now). So I didn’t get the idea that everyone was to strive not only to be the best widget cutter, but also to be a leader. You can be both. The best widget cutter NOW, then the striving to work up from there. > [@](#): > > What if he does not strive to be a leader? Doesn’t striving to be a leader suggest that some people are expected to be followers? Or are there simply degrees of leaderness? But then someone will be the least leaderish, since not everyone can equally be a leader. I suppose as long as they are being the best leader they can be even when they are last in line is the answer. People are not static in their jobs for all time. > [@](#): > > So they do expect a collective effort may be required to defend ongoing indepedence? If they are all supposed to strive to be leaders, how do they carry out military efforts? Someone has to be the leaderest private, right? And if I think I’m the best leader, it’s important that I not also be the first one off the Higgins boat, because rationally my superior value is not best spent using up enemy rounds. My rational self-interest and efforts to be a leader conflict with my obeying someone else’s orders. This is a false dichotomy because it doesn’t all happen at once. I start at the bottom and work my up over time. While I’m working my way up, I know I am expected to follow orders from above. That’s my job. ---
**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 13, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/509 "2009-11-13T16:16:34Z")
> [@winterhawk11](#): > > I think the first thing Rand would want to know is _why_ do you value sacrificing yourself for strangers. If you choose to serve in the military because you value your country, hold its values and your countrymen in high esteem, and want to protect them, then she might not approve of your reasoning (she felt that it was only moral to sacrifice for those worthy of such sacrifice, and I doubt she would consider a group of people all worthy–individuals, sure, but not everybody) but at least you have a reason (many would say a good reason) for doing so. > > If you truly get pleasure from denying yourself to “serve others” or “live for others” to the point where you are sacrificing your own needs and giving up your own interests to those of others merely because they _are_ others, then Rand (and I, for that matter) would probably call you irrational. It doesn’t sound like Rand would really approve of anyone joining the military unless the pay/benfits package represented a good “trade” to the soldier. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/510 "2009-11-13T16:17:54Z")
Can we examine this idea a little? > [@winterhawk11](#): > > I had a friend who used to be like that when I was in college. He seemed to get some perverse pleasure out of giving things up for others. I found it rather creepy. When I convinced him to read Atlas Shrugged (because I convinced all my friends in college to read it), he identified with James Taggart. I didn’t see anything remotely altruistic about James Taggart. I saw him as a straight, down-the-line businessman who wanted to succeed at any cost. Sure, he was incompetent and made poor choices. He sometimes dressed up his poor choices in altruism but I never got the idea that his altruism was sincere - it was a cover for his desire for power and influence. There were genuinely atruistic characters - like Catherine Halsey - who brightly illustrate Rand’s idea that altruism is harmful and immoral but I didn’t see Taggart in that way at all. Hence my earlier claim that Rearden and Galt would not have supported the tea parties while Taggart would have been on Fox News every night alongside Hannity and Beck. ---
**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 13, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/511 "2009-11-13T16:21:10Z")
> [@winterhawk11](#): > > Sorry about that, I wasn’t clear. It’s been a really long time since this happened. Maybe “perverse” wasn’t a good choice of words. “Inexplicable,” maybe. And it wasn’t like giving money to needy people or anything like that. I wish I could remember the specifics now. A fictional example of something I could see him doing (which he didn’t do–just an example) would be waiting in line for hours for concert tickets, only to give up his spot in line on a whim to a random stranger. This guy was a very whim-driven individual, and often did strange things that none of us could figure out. > > On a slightly different topic, there’s a character in “The Fountainhead” who kind of exemplifies the sort of altruism that I think is poisonous. Her name is Catherine Halsey. She’s a social worker. She tirelessly and “selflessly” works “for the good of the poor”–but she has a vested interest in wanting them to _stay_ poor and needy, because it makes her feel superior to be “helping” them. She gets a rush out of “helping the poor” because it lets her build herself up in her own mind, so the last thing she ever wants to do is have them succeed. I don’t believe for a minute that there aren’t people like that in the real world, even if they wouldn’t ever admit it or own up to it. Are you kidding? The poor will always be with us. It may not pay well but helping the poor has job security. I don’t doubt that some people get a real sense of satisfaction out of helping the poor and makes them feel really good about themselves (I bet Mother Theresa (as immoral as she would have been in Rand’s eyes) got a great deal of satisfaction and joy out of helping others even when it was to her own detriment). ---
**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 13, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/512 "2009-11-13T16:27:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you give some examples of these loathesome people? I’m drawing a blank. Grover Norquist comes to mind. The folks who adopted Rand’s philosophy after they became rich are (as a group) pretty loathesome. Folks who use Rand’s philosophy to justify their avarice. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/513 "2009-11-13T16:35:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t doubt that some people get a real sense of satisfaction out of helping the poor and makes them feel really good about themselves (I bet Mother Theresa (as immoral as she would have been in Rand’s eyes) got a great deal of satisfaction and joy out of helping others even when it was to her own detriment). I suggest you read Christopher Hitchens’ criticisms of Mother Theresa. She was a monster. ---
**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 13, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/514 "2009-11-13T16:42:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Not to burden you with any of those inconvenient ‘fact’ thingies, but Rand’s daddy was just a pharmacist, lower middle class Jews, and ‘they’ (those playful communists) took everything and pretty much forced the family to flee because of a probably irrational fear of, you know, death…and all that. Yeah, I don’t see the contradiction ebtween what I said and what you said. I don’t know that pharmacists are lower middle class but if she had been really poor and the communist revolution had lifted her out of that poverty, she might have had a different philosophy on life. > [@](#): > > Why you continue to debate on this subject is a mystery to me. To enlighten you my benighted brother. You have all these things floating around in your head that you “think” you know and whenever someone shows you how wrong you are, you simply ignore them and chalk it up to THEIR ignorance. Its a convenient mechanism that allows you to keep believing what you want to believe. > [@](#): > > And seriously, while I’m not disputing that you perhaps ‘read’ Atlas Shrugged…seriously, you didn’t get it. Seriously. No, I think I understand it quite well. My take on Rand is not some fringe lunatic position, there are plenty of scholars who have a very similar take. > [@](#): > > you can’t really claim any kind of grasp about Christianity because you skimmed a few chapters in the Bible (years ago) and can trot out an isolated speech by Jesus about something or another. I realize that you don’t get this, and that I’m essentially beating my head against the brick wall that is you in this thread, but maybe someone lurking will grasp this fairly basic idea. Huh? I thought I “trotted” out the Rand equivalent of “love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” Are my questions about public education and the military so off point? Are they not instructive about the “philosophy” that Rand put forward? Nitpicking and calling me ignorant seems to be the entire arsenal of your argument. > [@](#): > > Let’s see. You’ve been answered about the public education and military, but don’t seem to be able to grasp the answers you’ve been given, since you keep asking the same thing over and over again. Yeah and to highlight once again… Rand doesn’t believe in public education or military service the way it is generally understood in our society. See sees public education as theft and sees military service (entered into for something other than the pay/benefits) as folly that results from some sort of societal brainwashing (perhaps the same kind of brainwashing that occurs when people start believing in God or socialism). Is this typical of your arguments? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/515 "2009-11-13T16:47:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This is a false dichotomy because it doesn’t all happen at once. I start at the bottom and work my up over time. While I’m working my way up, I know I am expected to follow orders from above. That’s my job. That makes sense, because it’s in your rational self-interest to work towards the likely outcome. To get back to the issue of military service in defense of Randistan, it sounds like you are saying that the product of my rational self-interest should be to join the collective effort and fulfill whatever role I’m given. If my rational self-interest tells me that’s not in my best interests, then I am a moocher. Is that about it? ---
**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 13, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/516 "2009-11-13T16:57:24Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > To get back to the issue of military service in defense of Randistan, it sounds like you are saying that the product of my rational self-interest should be to join the collective effort and fulfill whatever role I’m given. If my rational self-interest tells me that’s not in my best interests, then I am a moocher. > > Is that about it? No, because you have to take into account if you WANT to be in the military. Remember, it’s a job, like being a sculptor or a scientist or a teacher. Some people like military careers, and remember that an Objectivist society, like any society with an all volunteer military, will structure the military to make it a desireable thing to do. Maybe you’re not very well off, and military offers you a chance to study electronics or even become a doctor. Sound familiar? It’s not like every Objectivist should come to the same conclusion about what career to pursue. We all have different abilities and interests, and an Objectivist would evaluate his/her abilities and interest “objectively” and act accordingly. If a guy really wanted to be an artist, but his father wanted him to go in to the military, then he’s a “second hander” if he goes into the military. If he wants to go into the military, but doesn’t because his sister is afraid he’ll get hurt, then he’s a “second hander”. ---
**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 13, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/517 "2009-11-13T17:01:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Grover Norquist comes to mind. I know he’s the anti-tax guy, but that’s all I really know about him. How is he an Objectivist, beyond being anti-tax? Is he a Limbaugh type liar who uses smear tactics to defeat his opponents? If so, he’s not an Objectivist. But if you’re just saying he’s “loathesome” because he advocated for lower taxes and does so in an honest way, then you’re just labeling your political opponents “loathesome” because they disagree with you on policy issues. Anyway, can you flesh that out for those of us who don’t know the details? ---
**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 13, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/518 "2009-11-13T17:38:13Z")
Let me add some more about the military issue. I have said previously that joining the military is “just a job”, but that’s an oversimplification and misses an important point. Normally, it’s just a job, but there will be times when it takes on a different dimension-- when your country is facing an real, honest-to-Galt, existential threat. Then, it would make sense for pretty much everyone to focus on dealing with that threat. For many, that would mean joining the military. For others that might mean contributing from the civilian sector. But I don’t think an Objectivist would think it was “noble” to die for one’s country. I think they’d recognize it as a necessary tragedy, unavoidable during times of war. Or at least it wouldn’t be any more “noble” than pursuing one’s rational self-interest in any way, shape or form during any time-- war or peace. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/519 "2009-11-13T17:48:14Z")
Clearly, no true Objectivist puts sugar on their porridge… ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/520 "2009-11-13T18:07:04Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > That makes sense, because it’s in your rational self-interest to work towards the likely outcome. > > To get back to the issue of military service in defense of Randistan, it sounds like you are saying that the product of my rational self-interest should be to join the collective effort and fulfill whatever role I’m given. If my rational self-interest tells me that’s not in my best interests, then I am a moocher. > > Is that about it? Well, if I’m reading her right, Rand would have said you weren’t really acting out of rational self-interest. In her view, you couldn’t be both a moocher and someone who is acting rationally in his own self-interest. She would also expect you to ask yourself if the threat was real or a phantom conjured up by some demagogue, and if the community in which you live is worth defending. So, in some circumstances, rational self-interest would dictate that you just keep a low profile and try to stay out of harm’s way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=27)