# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 30
**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 19, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/581 "2009-11-19T22:46:47Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > When the Surgeon General in the 50s claimed that smoking was dangerous, he offered nothing to defend this view but statistical correlations. Ayn Rand, of course, dismissed any alleged “science” hawked by Floyd Ferris, nor did she accept statistics as a means of establishing cause and effect. Statistics, she held, may offer a lead to further inquiry but, by themselves, they are an expression of ignorance, not a form of knowledge. For a long period of time, as an example, there was a high statistical correlation between the number of semicolons on the front page of The New York Times and the number of deaths among widows in a certain part of India. > > In due course, when scientists had studied the question, she and all of us came to grasp the mechanism by which smoking produces its effects—and we stopped. Doesn’t this prove, you might ask, that she was wrong to mistrust the government? My answer: even pathological liars sometimes tell the truth. Should you therefore heed their advice? I get the feeling that she would have figured out some way to use her philosophy to rationalize whatever the heck she wanted to do. ---
**Author:** ![bill\_harris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@bill\_harris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bill_harris)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/582 "2014-06-18T06:07:37Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Anyone feel like breaking down Ayn Rand’s philosophy for me? I would really like to figure her out, but most of her stuff tends to sail over my head, and I need someone to really break her down as if they are talking to a child. Anyone want to take a shot at it? > > I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and was lost half the time. I’m going to try it again, but I was hoping for a little help before I dive back in. > > I have already been roundly laughed at by several people for not being able to grasp it, so I am already jaded to that response. No one need even bother. At best, ‘objectivism’ is middle brow amerikan schlock gussied out to sound philosophical. It’s the linguistic equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig. At worst, it’s a scam. Neither Rand nor any of her inner circle of PhD accredited philosophers mean a word that they write. Rather, for them, it’s a cash-cow, much as an MD might sell tv snake oil. half-educated rubes buy into this because it permits them the opportunity to say something ‘philosophical’ without having actually read it. BH ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/583 "2014-06-18T16:34:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Assuming that’s a serious question, why would that be a problem? Once Randesia (not be be confused with Rhodesia) had been established, a true Objectivist would be willing to fight, and die, for it, if it were existentially threatened. One thing I can tell you, Randesia would not have invaded Iraq. It probably wouldn’t have participated in Gulf War I. Because, while it is in my self interest to be defended, it is not in my self interest to actually do the defending, since that puts my life at risk. It would be in everyone’s self interest to try and get someone else to fight for them. Ultimately, I think the only way to get soldiers would be to pay them so much that they’d be willing to risk their life. Whether they would be Randesians or foreign mercenaries, I do not know. Like everything else, it seems that the Randesian society would require everything to be about money. The patriotism you are espousing is an inherently altruistic idea, that of defending people who can’t or won’t defend themselves. It requires putting someone other than yourself first, which is taboo. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/584 "2014-06-18T16:41:52Z")
This is a 5 year old thread. If you’re really interested in rekindling the debate, maybe you should open a new one and let this one die. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/585 "2014-06-18T21:25:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This is a 5 year old thread. If you’re really interested in rekindling the debate, maybe you should open a new one and let this one die. But the first response will be a link to this thread saying it’s already been answered. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/586 "2014-06-18T22:20:14Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > But the first response will be a link to this thread saying it’s already been answered. :rolleyes: Not if the OP links to this thread and states that he or she wants a different discussion, then sets out the parameters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=29)