# 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:** 27
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/521 "2009-11-13T18:14:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Clearly, no true Objectivist puts sugar on their porridge… Porridge made by Objectivists is so good, so perfect in every conceivable way that it would not be in anyone’s rational self-interest to tarnish it with sugar. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/522 "2009-11-13T18:43:53Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I suppose as long as they are being the best leader they can be even when they are last in line is the answer. IIRC, the Rearden/Galt relationship exemplifies this idea (although Rearden certainly is not “last in line”). In the end – at least according to my interpretation – Rearden accepts Galt as his leader (never unconditionally, of course) and, furthermore, as his _better_. ISTM that there’s a (potential) contradiction here. The logical progression goes thus: [ul] [li]One should strive to be the best one can be in all things.[/li][li]The measure of “best” is competition (be it business, invention, or even Dagny/Francisco’s tennis matches).[/li][li]But a foundational aspect of competition is to never give up, as that would mean one did not reach their “best”.[/li][/ul] The logical escape hatch is that competition isn’t the sole measure of “best”; as Dirty Harry says, “a man’s got to know his limitations”. (As an aside, I’ve always equated this aspect of Rand with the ancient Greek notion of [arete](http://www.answers.com/topic/arete-1).) Or another way to eliminate the contradiction is to note that “never giving up” is not the same as “stubborn refusal to accept defeat”. But, IMHO, even if there’s no contradiction, it points to another stumbling block between Objectivist ideology and reality. Specifically, the reality of human psychology. It’s exceedingly rare for most to simply acquiesce to another’s superiority (e.g., the unwillingness to concede an argument), much less gladly accept it. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/523 "2009-11-13T18:47:27Z")
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] Yeah, I don’t see the contradiction ebtween what I said and what you said. [/QUOTE] You don’t see a contradiction between a fact and your purely ignorant speculative bullshit? Well, THERE is a shocker! > [@](#): > > 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. Heh…heheeheh…BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Well, not to let the facts get in your way, but not all poor people fared particularly well during or after the revolution. There seems no point in going into any more of those ‘fact’ things that you seem to disregard, but this is glaringly obvious to someone who even has the most cursory knowledge of the history of the Revolution in Russia. We aren’t even talking about knowledge of Rand and her works at this point…just basic history. Which you seem to have a similar grasp of wrt your grasp of Rand and her philosophy. > [@](#): > > 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. As you have show your vast knowledge of history as well here, no doubt. 😛 > [@](#): > > 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. Have you noticed something interesting? The folks who have admitted that they never really read Rand (or skimmed it, or read the Cliffs Notes digest) are the one’s who mostly agree with you, while people who actually HAVE read it (and clearly demonstrate that they understood what they read) don’t. Don’t you think that’s…curious? Well, of COURSE you don’t! Silly question, undoubtedly! > [@](#): > > 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. You trotted out the equivalent of ‘But I’ve clearly showed that Jesus and Christianity is all about cannibalism! Look, here is a passage about drinking his blood and eating his flesh! I don’t need to read the whole Bible…I’ve skimmed it years ago, and it clearly says what it says. You and the others here who have read it clearly don’t understand as deeply as I do, since you missed this key fact! You don’t need to read the whole thing…and reading is so HARD and all…’. What’s become increasingly funny is…you don’t get it! I think John Mace has adequately answered your questions concerning public education and military service. I’ll give my take on it after the meeting I’m headed too, FWIW…though it’s pretty much what he has been trying to beat into your head for about 3 pages now. I’m not sanguine you’ll understand it any better if I say it than when he was, but what the hell. -XT ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/524 "2009-11-13T18:54:45Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > 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. I feel bad for jumping in on **eludicator’s** point, but I think that you and **John Mace** are evading his key point in all this, and I have probably contributed to that. I do think you are getting close to the issue with your post, though. It isn’t a matter of what career I’m good at, or really, what the relative level of threat is. In any armed conflict, my own individual contribution really isn’t going to make or break it. The outcome will occur regardless of whether I keep a low profile or jump into the fray. Rationally, it never is going to be in my particular interest to enlist. From a risk/benefit standpoint as an individual, the benefits of the overall endeavor will be the same, but the risks if I join in will be pretty high. So as an Objectivist, rational self-interest would pretty much always suggest that I don’t become involved. Yet it appears I might get called out as a moocher by some, which appears contradictory. ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/525 "2009-11-13T18:55:33Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > I cannot conceive of anyone making that kind of statement. Well, short of a publicly funded education where I steal from you to educate someone else’s children, how do you propose that we educate the nation’s children? Do they all have cousin’s that will teach them trigonometry like George Washington had? > [@](#): > > From \*\*\*Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: \*\*” A volunteer army is the only proper, moral – and practical – way to defend a free country. OK, assuming everyone believed in Rand’s philosophy and the economic reality that we cannot possibly pay enough to “trade” with the caliber of people to maint6ain an army anywhere near the size we have now, what would we have to do to maintain our military? Would we reduce the size to a national defense force and pay people more to entice people to sign up? > [@](#): > > \*And about paying taxes: \*“A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, OK, I get it, paying taxes is not immoral. But isn’t the concept of taxes (to the extent it is a form of wealth redistribution (see public education)) immoral according to Rand? > [@](#): > > And if we get rid of all the projects that an Objectivist society would not be spending money on, the amount needed would be a fractions of what it is now. Would you refuse to pay taxes, if it were only spent to protect your rights, and there were a flat tax of, say, 1%? Can you expand on that for me. As far as I can tell, just supporting the interest on our national debt woud require more than that. Never mind funding a military and the basic functions of government. I mean even assuming we were OK with old/pook/sick people dying in the streets (medicare/medicaid), old people living in squalor (social security), poor people starving (food stamps), undernourished kids (WIC, AFDC, etc.), we would still need a lot more than a 1% income tax rate. > [@](#): > > This would be exactly the opposite of Objectivism: Subjectivism (not to be confused with subjectivity). Right, so I am still confused about how you recruit people to military service. > [@](#): > > Then why are you so mistaken about so many aspects of her philosophy, and need to have so much explained to you? Perhaps because \*Atlas Shrugged \*is only one of many things she wrote, including a whole lot of nonfiction on a myriad of subjects. Not only do you not understand the “nuance” of her philosophy; you don’t even understand some of the essentials. Ignorance is no excuse, and in your case it seems to be deliberate. It seems like you are saying that Ayn Rand was not able to get her entire philosophy into the thousand pages of Atlas Shrugged so it is not really fair for me to base my opinion on her philosophy based on those mere thousand pages when there is so much more out there. Despite the fact that Atlas Shrugged is the most well known of her writings, it is deliberate ignorance on my part not to go out there and read even more of Ayn Rand after slogging through a THOUSAND pages of Atlas Shrugged. How many more thousands of pages of Rand do I have to read before I am no longer being deliberately ignorant. Everyone who defends Rand seems to chalk up my disagreement with her to ignorance without being able to point out where I am mistaken about her philosophy. Tell me what I’m missing? I understand that Rand’s philosophy is not limited to “do not live for others and do not ask others to live for you” but this the only really controversial idea presented by Rand, all of the controversial positions seem to flow from these words. What deep philosophical insight has escaped me? Please enlighten me. It seems to me that John Galt’s speech is 100 pages of repeating those words over and over again in different ways. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/526 "2009-11-13T19:19:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > People are not static in their jobs for all time. My high school calculus teacher recently died and he was a high school teacher his entire life. He was a public school teacher so he was obviously a terrible teacher (despite having taught several nobel prize winners an wolf medal recipients) who was just mooching off the public teat but it seems like he was suckling at that teat from the same vantage point for his entire career. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/527 "2009-11-13T19:40:23Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I suggest you read Christopher Hitchens’ criticisms of Mother Theresa. She was a monster. I dunno. I have a wikipedia depth of knowledge on a lot of subjects. Perhaps Mother Teresa is simply a publicity coup by the Vatican and she was really a hollow old lady who went through the motions of a selfless devoted servant to the poorest of the poor. Or maybe even at the depths of of her crisis of faith, she chose her God even without the spiritual comfort that faith provides. I realize that this is even more abhorrent to Randians: that someone would make that sort of sacrifice for God when she didn’t even have faith compelling her to do so. When she was doing it our of a sense of obedience to a God she was unsure even existed while praying for more faith every day, I know I don’t have that kind of faith and heaven help me if I ever do. ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/528 "2009-11-13T19:56:37Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I feel bad for jumping in on **eludicator’s** point, but I think that you and **John Mace** are evading his key point in all this, and I have probably contributed to that. > > I do think you are getting close to the issue with your post, though. It isn’t a matter of what career I’m good at, or really, what the relative level of threat is. In any armed conflict, my own individual contribution really isn’t going to make or break it. The outcome will occur regardless of whether I keep a low profile or jump into the fray. Rationally, it never is going to be in my particular interest to enlist. From a risk/benefit standpoint as an individual, the benefits of the overall endeavor will be the same, but the risks if I join in will be pretty high. > > So as an Objectivist, rational self-interest would pretty much always suggest that I don’t become involved. Yet it appears I might get called out as a moocher by some, which appears contradictory. It’s also in your rational self-interest, according to Objectivist philosophy, to act with honesty and integrity. And to not let someone else live for you (or, by extension, die for you). Given those two tenets, would you say that ducking out of military responsibility when there is an existential threat to your home is consistent with Objectivist philosophy? ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/529 "2009-11-13T19:57:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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? Well he is one of a lot of conservatives who throw around Randisms to justify the position he was going to take even if he never heard of Ayn Rand. I am not objective when it comes to Grover Norquist, I think he is scum. He talks about reducing the size of government but he is much more interested in simply reducing taxes, if we can reduce the size of government as a result of reducing taxes then great but it is taxes that he doesn’t like. Reducing taxes is the answer to everything for him. Economy in the tank? Reduce taxes. Government getting too big? Reduce taxes. Feeling kinda blue on mondays? Reduce taxes. And I don’t really think its because he really cares that much about relieving the tax burden because he doesn’t insist nearly as much that conservatives reduce government services (which is necessary to actually reducing the tax burden over time), I don’t see the conservatives trying to cut medicare/medicaid, security, or the military, the three largest categories of government spending (accounting for almost 75% of government spending). He just wraps himself in a cloak of pretended patriotism and uses unpaid for tax cuts to buy votes at the expense of our (and our children’s) economic health. I find that loathesome. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/530 "2009-11-13T20:01:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My high school calculus teacher recently died and he was a high school teacher his entire life. He was a public school teacher so he was obviously a terrible teacher (despite having taught several nobel prize winners an wolf medal recipients) who was just mooching off the public teat but it seems like he was suckling at that teat from the same vantage point for his entire career. I will modify that statement to be: _People needn’t remain static in their jobs for all time._ ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/531 "2009-11-13T20:11:32Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You don’t see a contradiction between a fact and your purely ignorant speculative bullshit? Well, THERE is a shocker! Well that was very enlightening. Thanks. > [@](#): > > Well, not to let the facts get in your way Well I figured if you weren’t neither would I. > [@](#): > > Have you noticed something interesting? The folks who have admitted that they never really read Rand (or skimmed it, or read the Cliffs Notes digest) are the one’s who mostly agree with you, while people who actually HAVE read it (and clearly demonstrate that they understood what they read) don’t. Don’t you think that’s…curious? Well, of COURSE you don’t! Silly question, undoubtedly! Maybe there is some self selection going on there (most people have a limited tolerance to read stuff that they disagree with for thousands of pages on end) but I would suggest that there are scholars that have read a lot of what Rand has had to say and they think its bullshit too. > [@](#): > > You trotted out the equivalent of 'But I’ve clearly showed that Jesus and Christianity is all about cannibalism! Look, here is a passage about drinking his blood and eating his flesh! I don’t need to read the whole Bible…I’ve skimmed it years ago, and it clearly says what it says. You and the others here who have read it clearly don’t understand as deeply as I do, since you missed this key fact! Really? So don’t live for others and do not ask others to live for you is not a central tenet of Randianism? I have somehow taken those words out of context? If I have done the equivalent of call Christians cannibals then perhaps it is because so many Randinistas practice cannibalism. I am trying very hard to cut through the snark to get to whatever point you are trying to make (other than “you are an idiot for disagreeing with me and shut up because I have read more Rand than you”) > [@](#): > > I think John Mace has adequately answered your questions concerning public education and military service. Yeah, and I put forward Rand’s views on public education and military service as examples of what is wrong with Randianism. > [@](#): > > I’ll give my take on it after… I wait with bated breath. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/532 "2009-11-13T20:24:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s also in your rational self-interest, according to Objectivist philosophy, to act with honesty and integrity. And to not let someone else live for you (or, by extension, die for you). Given those two tenets, would you say that ducking out of military responsibility when there is an existential threat to your home is consistent with Objectivist philosophy? OK so you are talking about the second half of the randinista’s golden rule “do not live for others or ask others to live for you” Its not just rational self interest it is also personal responsibility. And when we are talking about existential threats I guess you can’t just move to Canada because Canada is likely to be next on the list. I guess that would make the military really cheap too cuz you wouldn’t need a standing army, you would just have to train everyone like they do in Switzerland. So what happens if national interests are threatened abroad? Does Rand recognize the need for military action outside of self defense? Lets say a country starts invading all its neighbors and committing genocide on an ethnic minority. What would Randinistas do? Lets say that an trading partner is invaded by their neighbor who has no intent or ability to threaten you. What would the Randinista do? ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/533 "2009-11-13T20:41:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Porridge made by Objectivists is so good, so perfect in every conceivable way that it would not be in anyone’s rational self-interest to tarnish it with sugar. Well, of course! Selected and prepared to exacting standards of reason and science. Mom’s is still better. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/534 "2009-11-13T20:51:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s also in your rational self-interest, according to Objectivist philosophy, to act with honesty and integrity. And to not let someone else live for you (or, by extension, die for you). Given those two tenets, would you say that ducking out of military responsibility when there is an existential threat to your home is consistent with Objectivist philosophy? It’s fully up to my estimation of my self-interest, arrived at rationally, is it not? Using words like “ducking out of military responsibility” sound like it’s an obligation you are putting on me while trying to induce shame in me to influence my rationally driven behavior, which doesn’t seem very Randian. Also, I didn’t know that it was the case from an Objectivist standpoint that I should _prevent_ someone from living or dying for me. I should do my own thing and let others do theirs, right? If I rationally decide that my self-interest is best served by not putting myself in harm’s way, who are you to goad me into feeling or behaving otherwise? Secondarily, is there a philosophy that encourages qualities other than honesty and integrity? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/535 "2009-11-13T21:09:42Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I feel bad for jumping in on **eludicator’s** point, but I think that you and **John Mace** are evading his key point in all this, and I have probably contributed to that. > > I do think you are getting close to the issue with your post, though. It isn’t a matter of what career I’m good at, or really, what the relative level of threat is. In any armed conflict, my own individual contribution really isn’t going to make or break it. The outcome will occur regardless of whether I keep a low profile or jump into the fray. Rationally, it never is going to be in my particular interest to enlist. From a risk/benefit standpoint as an individual, the benefits of the overall endeavor will be the same, but the risks if I join in will be pretty high. > > So as an Objectivist, rational self-interest would pretty much always suggest that I don’t become involved. Yet it appears I might get called out as a moocher by some, which appears contradictory. I get what you are asking. But I think you are making your assumptions from the Americentric view of wars being something that happens overseas on foreign soil. If you were directly threatened with random bombings or roving death squads, you may decide the risk of “laying low” is not significantly lower than joining the military and actively fighting. > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > OK, assuming everyone believed in Rand’s philosophy and the economic reality that we cannot possibly pay enough to “trade” with the caliber of people to maint6ain an army anywhere near the size we have now, what would we have to do to maintain our military? Would we reduce the size to a national defense force and pay people more to entice people to sign up? Probably. Presumably we would need less military since according to Objectivist philosophy, it is immoral to use the threat of violence to coerce others. We would likely be a lot more isolationist and would not need as large a military since we wouldn’t be trying to project power all over the globe. > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat > I suggest you read Christopher Hitchens’ criticisms of Mother Theresa. She was a monster. > > I dunno. I have a wikipedia depth of knowledge on a lot of subjects. Perhaps Mother Teresa is simply a publicity coup by the Vatican and she was really a hollow old lady who went through the motions of a selfless devoted servant to the poorest of the poor. Or maybe even at the depths of of her crisis of faith, she chose her God even without the spiritual comfort that faith provides. I realize that this is even more abhorrent to Randians: that someone would make that sort of sacrifice for God when she didn’t even have faith compelling her to do so. When she was doing it our of a sense of obedience to a God she was unsure even existed while praying for more faith every day, I know I don’t have that kind of faith and heaven help me if I ever do. Here is an interesting question for you. What has done more to improve the standard of living of more poor people in India - charity work like that performed by Mother Teresa or corporate outsourcing? And why is one considered moral and the other isn’t? > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > It seems like you are saying that Ayn Rand was not able to get her entire philosophy into the thousand pages of Atlas Shrugged so it is not really fair for me to base my opinion on her philosophy based on those mere thousand pages when there is so much more out there. I hear him saying that based on your comments, it doesn’t seem like you read or understood ANY of her writings. I’ve only read Atlas Shrugged as well, and whether you agree with her or not, it should be enough to grasp her message. The main points I take away from the book are: - Honesty, reason and logic should trump wishful thinking and bullshit - Live your life the way you think is best for you, not the way others think is best for you - Do not be a slave to public opinion, dogma, peer pressure, or “fashionable” ways of thinking - Hard work, creativity and innovation should be rewarded and laziness, incompetance and corruption should not Don’t most people want to be able to decide what kind of work they want to do? Wouldn’t most people want to be evaluated objectively on what they have accomplished instead of by some manager’s whim? Wouldn’t most people rather be dealt with straightforwardly and honestly? Shouldn’t achievement be rewarded and failure not? The problem is that most people do believe this, so long as it is to their benefit. When it’s not to their benefit, then people become resentful and cry “unfair”. - People who do the bare minimum at their job and then resent the girl who worked extra hard and got promoted to manager - The guy at the office who creates this elaborate facade of competancy while actually acomplishing nothing - Management who hire or promote based on their friendships instead of who is the most deserving and qualified And because there are more mediocre- and under-performers than high performers, they can bring social and political pressure to bare. Think of the typical American high school. It’s not a dissimilar phenomenon to where the kids who excel in academics or band or anything other than sports are viewed as “nerds” or “geeks” and are oastracized, ignored or treated with hostility. ---
**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 13, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/536 "2009-11-13T21:24:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well, short of a publicly funded education where I steal from you to educate someone else’s children, how do you propose that we educate the nation’s children? Do they all have cousin’s that will teach them trigonometry like George Washington had? > > OK, assuming everyone believed in Rand’s philosophy and the economic reality that we cannot possibly pay enough to “trade” with the caliber of people to maint6ain an army anywhere near the size we have now, what would we have to do to maintain our military? Would we reduce the size to a national defense force and pay people more to entice people to sign up? > > OK, I get it, paying taxes is not immoral. But isn’t the concept of taxes (to the extent it is a form of wealth redistribution (see public education)) immoral according to Rand? > > Can you expand on that for me. As far as I can tell, just supporting the interest on our national debt woud require more than that. Never mind funding a military and the basic functions of government. I mean even assuming we were OK with old/pook/sick people dying in the streets (medicare/medicaid), old people living in squalor (social security), poor people starving (food stamps), undernourished kids (WIC, AFDC, etc.), we would still need a lot more than a 1% income tax rate. > > Right, so I am still confused about how you recruit people to military service. > > It seems like you are saying that Ayn Rand was not able to get her entire philosophy into the thousand pages of Atlas Shrugged so it is not really fair for me to base my opinion on her philosophy based on those mere thousand pages when there is so much more out there. Despite the fact that Atlas Shrugged is the most well known of her writings, it is deliberate ignorance on my part not to go out there and read even more of Ayn Rand after slogging through a THOUSAND pages of Atlas Shrugged. How many more thousands of pages of Rand do I have to read before I am no longer being deliberately ignorant. > > Everyone who defends Rand seems to chalk up my disagreement with her to ignorance without being able to point out where I am mistaken about her philosophy. > > Tell me what I’m missing? I understand that Rand’s philosophy is not limited to “do not live for others and do not ask others to live for you” but this the only really controversial idea presented by Rand, all of the controversial positions seem to flow from these words. What deep philosophical insight has escaped me? Please enlighten me. It seems to me that John Galt’s speech is 100 pages of repeating those words over and over again in different ways. After hundreds of posts, now you want us to tell you what you’re missing? Now you want us to begin explaining things to you? What you’re doing here is nothing short of masturbation, and I will no longer be a part of it. You can rant all you want, but I will no longer read your posts. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/537 "2009-11-13T22:16:08Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s fully up to my estimation of my self-interest, arrived at rationally, is it not? Not really. Let’s look at the logical outcome of your conclusion. Since everyone would logically come to that same conclusion, no one would sign up for the military. In which case there would be no military, and then the idea that one incremental person won’t make any difference is no longer true. > [@](#): > > Using words like “ducking out of military responsibility” sound like it’s an obligation you are putting on me while trying to induce shame in me to influence my rationally driven behavior, which doesn’t seem very Randian. My slip. Not being a Randian, myself, I can be forgiven a slip or two… > [@](#): > > Also, I didn’t know that it was the case from an Objectivist standpoint that I should _prevent_ someone from living or dying for me. I didn’t use the word “prevent”. I said don’t let. And if I don’t join the military even though I want to, and some other guy is out there fighting for Randesia (which is under an existential threat), then that guy is living for me. > [@](#): > > I should do my own thing and let others do theirs, right? If I rationally decide that my self-interest is best served by not putting myself in harm’s way, who are you to goad me into feeling or behaving otherwise? If you rationally decide that, then sure. The question is whether you are actually being rational. > [@](#): > > Secondarily, is there a philosophy that encourages qualities other than honesty and integrity? Nihilism comes to mind, but I’m not familiar with every philosophy that exists out there, so there could well be others. ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/538 "2009-11-13T22:46:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really. Let’s look at the logical outcome of your conclusion. Since everyone would logically come to that same conclusion, no one would sign up for the military. In which case there would be no military, and then the idea that one incremental person won’t make any difference is no longer true. Exactly! Isn’t that the point? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/539 "2009-11-14T00:53:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really. Let’s look at the logical outcome of your conclusion. Since everyone would logically come to that same conclusion, no one would sign up for the military. In which case there would be no military, and then the idea that one incremental person won’t make any difference is no longer true… You were smirking when you typed that, weren’t you? Scant fear of that, the nation becoming unanimously Objectivist, such that the choice for military force is so limited. Not exactly sweeping the nation, is it? More Scientologists than Objectivists, do you think? Marketing, thats the problem, Objectivism pitches to a very elitist crowd, the people who don’t rule the world but know they ought to. But it has no poetry to inspire. No “Ode to Joy” to offer, no stomping spirituals to frighten the Devil. Maybe Techno. _The Love Sonnets of Ayn Rand?_ The horror. The horror. So, no, I very much doubt that the nation will be pressed for personpower to such extent that an Objectivist gap in recruiting will be a pressing crisis. ---
**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 14, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/540 "2009-11-14T02:24:01Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Probably. Presumably we would need less military since according to Objectivist philosophy, it is immoral to use the threat of violence to coerce others. We would likely be a lot more isolationist and would not need as large a military since we wouldn’t be trying to project power all over the globe. OK so as far as you can tell, Rand would support a small military full of folks who were basically doing it for the money or other benefits (and there is nothing wrong with that, a folks I know originally joined the military as a way to advance their education). And I assume that unless she expected the military to be funded by donations she must have thought that forcibly taking my money to pay for a military that I might not want to pay for (or perhaps take more than I wanted to contribute) was ok in at least SOME circumstances. Presumably if I was a selfish bastard that didn’t want to contribute anything then Rand would support coercing me to pay my share, so then where does it end? Where does society’s ability to DEMAND your contribution to a greater good end? > [@](#): > > Here is an interesting question for you. What has done more to improve the standard of living of more poor people in India - charity work like that performed by Mother Teresa or corporate outsourcing? And why is one considered moral and the other isn’t? Obviously the effect of an economic phenomenon is going to be greater than the effect of a single person but I don’t think that really diminishes Mother Teresa’s life. BTW, I haven’t heard anyone calling outsourcing immoral. > [@](#): > > I hear him saying that based on your comments, it doesn’t seem like you read or understood ANY of her writings. I’ve only read Atlas Shrugged as well, and whether you agree with her or not, it should be enough to grasp her message. That’s what I thought too but apparently its not. > [@](#): > > The main points I take away from the book are: > > - Honesty, reason and logic should trump wishful thinking and bullshit > - Live your life the way you think is best for you, not the way others think is best for you > - Do not be a slave to public opinion, dogma, peer pressure, or “fashionable” ways of thinking > - Hard work, creativity and innovation should be rewarded and laziness, incompetance and corruption should not Well, I think you might be watering it down a little bit and that is why I asked the questions about public education and the military to tease out exactly how far Randifarianism goes. > [@](#): > > Don’t most people want to be able to decide what kind of work they want to do? Wouldn’t most people want to be evaluated objectively on what they have accomplished instead of by some manager’s whim? Wouldn’t most people rather be dealt with straightforwardly and honestly? Shouldn’t achievement be rewarded and failure not? > > The problem is that most people do believe this, so long as it is to their benefit. When it’s not to their benefit, then people become resentful and cry “unfair”. > > - People who do the bare minimum at their job and then resent the girl who worked extra hard and got promoted to manager > - The guy at the office who creates this elaborate facade of competancy while actually acomplishing nothing > - Management who hire or promote based on their friendships instead of who is the most deserving and qualified > > And because there are more mediocre- and under-performers than high performers, they can bring social and political pressure to bare. Think of the typical American high school. It’s not a dissimilar phenomenon to where the kids who excel in academics or band or anything other than sports are viewed as “nerds” or “geeks” and are oastracized, ignored or treated with hostility. OK, its hard to disagree with you, but do you think that Rand offers a solution to these problems? > [@panache45](#): > > After hundreds of posts, now you want us to tell you what you’re missing? Now you want us to begin explaining things to you? What you’re doing here is nothing short of masturbation, and I will no longer be a part of it. You can rant all you want, but I will no longer read your posts. Yeah, after hundreds of posts of you telling the I just don’t “get it” I’d like you to tell me what it is I don’t get. This is a debate forum, if you can’t handle it then perhaps it IS better that you just move along. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=28)