# Ayn Rand - liberal or conservative? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639 "2012-01-15T22:50:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/41 "2012-01-18T19:59:21Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > You’re confusing happiness with rational self-interest. Near the end of _Atlas Shrugged_ and, somewhat, \*The Fountainhead, \*there were protagonists risking their lives for their principles. If someone invades, my rational self-interest is for someone else to decide that its in their rational self interest to go die fighting them off while I stay safe at home. ---
**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:** [January 18, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/42 "2012-01-18T20:30:50Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > If someone invades, my rational self-interest is for someone else to decide that its in their rational self interest to go die fighting them off while I stay safe at home. If we’re all objectivists, then it doesn’t take long to figure out that isn’t going to work. And if we’re not, it’s still a matter of numbers-- the bigger the army, the more the likelihood of success. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/43 "2012-01-18T20:49:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If we’re all objectivists, then it doesn’t take long to figure out that isn’t going to work. I guess, but if you assume that everyone will help out because its in everyones interest that the effort be successful, it seems like your just reinventing communism. Everyone was supposed to help develop the communal farm or whatever because, while one person might benefit from slacking off, the total effort will fail if everyone does that, so no one did. Turns out such arguments end up not being adequate to motivate people. > [@](#): > > And if we’re not, it’s still a matter of numbers-- the bigger the army, the more the likelihood of success. But one more solider joining up is going to have a pretty marginal effect on the chances of success. But if I sign up, its going to have a much more then marginal effect on the chances of being bayoneted to death in a foxhole somewhere. ---
**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:** [January 18, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/44 "2012-01-18T20:54:24Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I guess, but if you assume that everyone will help out because its in everyones interest that the effort be successful, it seems like your just reinventing communism. Everyone was supposed to help develop the communal farm or whatever because, while one person might benefit from slacking off, the total effort will fail if everyone does that, so no one did. > > Turns out such arguments end up not being adequate to motivate people. Not really. People were forced into the collective farm. We have an all volunteer agricultural industry the same way we have an all volunteer military. The way to motivate people is to let them do what their passion is. Believe it or not, some people really LIKE being in the military. > [@](#): > > But one more solider joining up is going to have a pretty marginal effect on the chances of success. But if I sign up, its going to have a much more then marginal effect on the chances of being bayoneted to death in a foxhole somewhere. One Objectivists = 100 non Objectivists. Did you not read your _Atlas Shrugged_ properly? Off to Objectivist re-education camp! ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/45 "2012-01-19T01:13:14Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Interesting. Would you have her \*\*\*not \*\*\*liking herself, or those who liked her? That was not the implication. Rather than insisting she engage in a healthy dose of self-loathing, I was implying that she rather enjoyed the cult of personality around her, rather than choosing to ally with any other group or individual. ---
**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:** [January 19, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/46 "2012-01-19T01:45:40Z")
Actually, she would have jumped at the chance to ally with another individual or group. But it seemed that whenever she tried to, especially in the '30s and '40s, she was always disappointed. And, in spite of the “cult of personality,” she was a very lonely person. She once said that she’d give her right arm for someone her own age (other than her husband) to admire. There was no one. She did have friends - other authors or Hollywood people - but that’s not the same. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/47 "2012-01-19T02:04:53Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Actually, she would have jumped at the chance to ally with another individual or group. But it seemed that whenever she tried to, especially in the '30s and '40s, she was always disappointed. And, in spite of the “cult of personality,” she was a very lonely person. She once said that she’d give her right arm for someone her own age (other than her husband) to admire. There was no one. I think this in itself is extremely telling and rather supportive of my now-clarified implication. The subtext in this is simple: no one measured up but her little clique (and even that got embroiled in nonsense). It goes to show that she would not be a liberal or conservative, though not because she held some edgy and deep third way. Though it is clear she did like to think she held some third way. But I mean, come on, not finding _anyone_ to admire? I can think of more than a few people I admire, and I don’t even _agree_ with some of them. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/48 "2012-01-19T03:03:58Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > There is no libertarian metaphysics, epistemology, ethics or esthetics. There is only libertarian politics. Objectivism doesn’t tackle metaphysics or epistemology, and Libertarianism (like Objectivism) is correctly defined as an ethical ideology. The only sort-of correct point you made was that Libertarian philosophy doesn’t address asthetics, where Objectivism does. You have failed to distinguish Libertarians from Objectivists. What is it about Libertarians that excludes them from being Objectivists, besides just taking some dead woman’s word for 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:** [January 19, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/49 "2012-01-19T03:24:40Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > There is no libertarian metaphysics, epistemology, ethics or esthetics. There is only libertarian politics. I think people are talking principally about politics and economics. Is there any significant difference between Objectivist and Libertarian politics or economic? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/50 "2012-01-19T03:50:10Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Objectivism doesn’t tackle metaphysics or epistemology . . . [Yes, it does.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/51 "2012-01-19T03:59:51Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > “The coming of Reagan”? Was there some sort of heavenly choir involved? Well, yeah, but this was 1980, it was a techno-choir with spandex and leg warmers and disco-holdover influences, that’s why nobody talks about it any more. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/52 "2012-01-19T05:10:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Yes, it does.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism) I stand corrected. She plagiarized her philosophy from established classical sources, and got upset when the Libertarians plagiarized her politics, economics, and ethics. I’m still not seeing anything worth justifying a serious distinction between Libertarianism and Objectivism. The Libertarian foot fits quite nicely into that Objectivist shoe. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/53 "2012-01-19T06:02:17Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > I stand corrected. She plagiarized her philosophy from established classical sources, and got upset when the Libertarians plagiarized her politics, economics, and ethics. I’m still not seeing anything worth justifying a serious distinction between Libertarianism and Objectivism. The Libertarian foot fits quite nicely into that Objectivist shoe. Perhaps the distinction is that it doesn’t work in reverse, that is, Libertarianism does not imply acceptance of the whole Objectivist philosophy and value-package, ethical and esthetic and mythic. E.g., there’s an Objectivist Superman, but there doesn’t need to be any Libertarian Superman. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/54 "2012-01-19T06:51:48Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Objectivism doesn’t tackle metaphysics or epistemology, and Libertarianism (like Objectivism) is correctly defined as an ethical ideology. The only sort-of correct point you made was that Libertarian philosophy doesn’t address asthetics, where Objectivism does. > > You have failed to distinguish Libertarians from Objectivists. What is it about Libertarians that excludes them from being Objectivists, besides just taking some dead woman’s word for it? Since the dead woman in question is the founder of Objectivism, her word does carry slightly more weight than simply ‘some dead woman.’ To quote her again, “They [Libertarians] are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.” Feel free to substitute morality for ethics. > [@Mosier](#): > > I stand corrected. She plagiarized her philosophy from established classical sources, By that standard every philosopher in history is a plagiarist, along with every scientist, historian, most religion, etc. > [@](#): > > and got upset when the Libertarians plagiarized her politics, economics, and ethics. I’m still not seeing anything worth justifying a serious distinction between Libertarianism and Objectivism. The Libertarian foot fits quite nicely into that Objectivist shoe. Well that dead woman did speak about her objections to it and the differences between the two, but we know your feelings on the words of dead women. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/55 "2012-01-19T07:08:07Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Since the dead woman in question is the founder of Objectivism, her word does carry slightly more weight than simply ‘some dead woman.’ To quote her again, “They [Libertarians] are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.” Feel free to substitute morality for ethics. \ The dead woman’s word should carry very little weight on the subject of ethics since the dead woman, in an angry diatribe titled To Whom It May Concern, published lies and libelous accusations about a couple of people who had propped her and her ideas up for years. And why did she publish it? Because the male of the couple finally got up the balls to tell her that he could not reestablish a romantic relationship with her because she was too old for him and she had anger issues. Did the couple sue her? No, they rebutted her lies and accusations rationally and gently. They should’ve sued her ass off and let her sink into the obscurity she deserves. ---
**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:** [January 19, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/56 "2012-01-19T15:03:12Z")
Well, you obviously haven’t read the _Code of Cougar Objectivism_, otherwise you’d see the error of your ways! ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/57 "2012-01-19T15:09:36Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Well that dead woman did speak about her objections to it Her objections to Libertarians were entirely insults. She never could provide a reasonable distinction between her own political and economic philosophy and that of the Libertarians. If I invented a political philosphy which advocates extreme wealth redistribution, would you say it would be reasonable to distinguish Mosierism from Socialism just because you can quote me saying Socialists are pond-sucking wiener-brains? The only distinction between Objectivist and Libertarian political and economic philosophy is that Rand declared herself one and not the other. What points of Objectivism do Libertarians reject? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/58 "2012-01-19T15:11:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Perhaps the distinction is that it doesn’t work in reverse, that is, Libertarianism does not imply acceptance of the whole Objectivist philosophy and value-package, ethical and esthetic and mythic. E.g., there’s an Objectivist Superman, but there doesn’t need to be any Libertarian Superman. That’s why I’m modifying my original statements, to say that Objectivists and Libertarians have no honest distinction in the areas of economics and politics. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/59 "2012-01-19T17:46:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, you obviously haven’t read the _Code of Cougar Objectivism_, otherwise you’d see the error of your ways! The mere thought is liable to give me a nightmare – guess that’d be _Kreuger Objectivism_. ---
**Author:** ![robinson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/848f3c/32.png) [@robinson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robinson)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639/60 "2012-01-20T02:53:21Z")
Mainly I was reacting to the title of the OP. The labels Liberal and Conservative have become meaningless epithets. I’m not educated enough in philosophy to get into things like Objectivism. I only know that life and politics is incredibly multidimensional, and it just irks me to have to map everyone onto one line. The only reason I said neo-feudalist was that she reminded me of someone that would be comfortable with trial-by-arms. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-liberal-or-conservative/609639.md?page=4)