# Did Ayn Rand sincerely believe that Objectivism would be good for mankind? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784 "2013-07-17T20:32:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/21 "2013-07-17T22:23:19Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Shorthand for “those making their first intellectual discovery.” It can be teens, the resolutely blue- or pink-collar worker who’s never read a serious book before, someone older who hasn’t read a political or sociological thesis before… or, most likely, someone about 20 exposed to their first Really Big Idea. We’ve had an influx of these wide-eyed guppies lately. ISTM that both Ayn Rand **and** Karl Marx should be required reading **in middle school.** Same reason we require them to get measles shots – immunization. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/22 "2013-07-17T22:23:51Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > People do stuff for their own reasons, and expecting them to help others out of the goodness of their hearts leads to all sorts of disappointing results, and pretty soon the people who expect altruism are pointing guns at you to force you to be altruistic, or else. That is exactly how Jimmy Carter made me join Habitat for Humanity. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/23 "2013-07-17T22:28:55Z")
It seems like people really do misunderstand her message. For all the crowing I hear about how her philosophy is only beloved by dummies or kids or people who aren’t very well read or whatever, for all of that, I rarely come across critics whom I get the feeling understand what they are reading when they read her. Unless I am the one reading her wrong. It seems to me that many of her critics don’t seem to understand that followers of her philosophy could very well decide to give millions and millions to the poor. They may well decide that building the very best schools and roads and institutions are the best thing for them to do, and that offering the poor and down trodden lots of money and even hand outs may be indeed a great idea. People seem to take greedy, wicked rich people who don’t want to give to the poor or pay lots of taxes and conflate them with Rand’s philosophy. That’s incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/24 "2013-07-17T22:35:31Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I always think of the story of the French statesman whose advisor rushed into the room. “M’sieur! Your son has announced he is a Communist! You must disown him!” To which the statesman replies, “My son is 21. If he had not become a Communist at 21, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I’ll disown him then.” I’ve read that in many variants, often misattributed to Winston Churchill, and sometimes it says “Communist” and sometimes “socialist” and sometimes “liberal” and sometimes “rebel,” and the age is sometimes 25 and sometime 30 – the most-quoted variant is, “Anyone who is not a socialist before the age of 25 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after 25 has no head.” But the original quote was from [Francois Guizot,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Guizot) a 19th-Century French monarchist blasting (small-r) republicanism: “Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.” (Which makes him sound like a total asshole today, but, in fairness, at the time France already had had some bad experiences with republican experiments. And remember **that** next time you mock the failures of socialism.) Georges Clemenceau, BTW, later appropriated/revived this, substituting “socialist” for “republican.” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/25 "2013-07-17T22:35:36Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > If you did enjoy atlas shrugged, the most joyful scenes from the book take place in that hidden valley. That’s because there is a society and a support system of like minded people there. . . . I’ve never understood the knee jerk hate she inspires. Well, part of the hate is simply reflecting back at her the hate she expresses for us. Calling my philosophy an “anti-life principle” is pretty childish. She earns hatred by engaging in it. The valley always perplexes me. What is the oil millionaire going to do? Wash dishes? He doesn’t have any wealth any more. He set fire to his oil wells! Why does he belong in the valley? What skill does he bring? The musician can entertain. John Galt keeps the lights lit. The oil millionaire? He’s now supernumerary. A sponge. The people of the valley will eventually throw him out. (Or…kill him? He knows their location.) It’s a grievously simplistic philosophy. Most of us don’t really hate it. We just dismiss it as childish. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/26 "2013-07-17T22:36:54Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > AB, I hear those criticisms of her writing too often. If one disagrees with her points, let them disagree. To constantly accuse those who do agree as being ignorant just smacks of ad hominem. “Your position is incorrect because you are just a dumb kid, or a person who doesn’t read big books” She constantly accused those who _don’t_ agree of being irrational, evil rotters, which doesn’t exactly encourage calm, unemotional discussion. Okay, so both sides can be ad hominem douchebags. FWIW, [With Charity Toward None](http://www.amazon.com/With-Charity-Toward-None-Philosophy/dp/0822601796) does a decent job of rebutting her, without personal attacks. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/27 "2013-07-17T22:41:17Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > That is exactly how Jimmy Carter made me join Habitat for Humanity. Yew shut up an’ keep on a-hammerin’. [click] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/28 "2013-07-17T22:44:25Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > She calls herself a romantic author, one who represents things how they ought to be. But, she isn’t. (And that is not even one of the several meanings of “romantic.”) In the [Romanticism v. Enlightenment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Guizot) war, Rand is **solidly** on the side of Team Enlightenment. So is Karl Marx. (Rousseau, Nietzsche and Hitler play for Team Romanticism.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/29 "2013-07-17T22:47:33Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > It seems like people really do misunderstand her message. For all the crowing I hear about how her philosophy is only beloved by dummies or kids or people who aren’t very well read or whatever, for all of that, I rarely come across critics whom I get the feeling understand what they are reading when they read her. But serious philosophers **are** capable of understanding her, and they do not take her seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/30 "2013-07-17T22:56:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But serious philosophers **are** capable of understanding her, and they do not take her seriously. Ah. Cite? I hate to appeal to authority, but I’m not gonna lie, I often have a weakness in that I appeal to authority. Can you give me some names? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/31 "2013-07-17T23:00:27Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > And while I agree there a great deal of over simplified utopia to her valley, I’ve never understood the knee jerk hate she inspires. One reason is that she was at least as dogmatic, loud, shrill, unbending, self-righteous, and dismissive of disagreement as Karl Marx, or Rush Limbaugh, or Madalyn Murray O’Hair. The sort of personality at which even persons in complete intellectual agreement are tempted to scream, “Stop helping me!” ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/32 "2013-07-17T23:08:07Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Point out how, and cite Don’t care to, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/33 "2013-07-17T23:13:02Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > AB, I hear those criticisms of her writing too often. If one disagrees with her points, let them disagree. To constantly accuse those who do agree as being ignorant just smacks of ad hominem. “Your position is incorrect because you are just a dumb kid, or a person who doesn’t read big books” I’m using “ignorance” as synonymous with “no relevant education or experience,” not as a schoolyard insult. The largest portion of Rand’s followers appear to be - and often prove out to be, after literally exhausting argument - ignorant of other socioeconomic philosophies and thus have no basis to make a rational evaluation of Rand’s. They can only argue from within their understanding, not comparatively. The same is true of most starry-eyed Communists I’ve met. It isn’t that they examined all the schools of thought and chose one, it’s that the first one to come along filled their intellectual tank and eliminated any further need to understand. ETA: I simply haven’t run into many well-educated, fully-rounded thinkers who fell for either Marx or Rand. That speaks volumes. There are undoubtedly interesting points to discuss from a more developed viewpoint, but it quickly gets enmeshed with those who don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t care, because Karl/Ayn already gave 'em the answers. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/34 "2013-07-17T23:13:29Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Ah. Cite? I hate to appeal to authority, but I’m not gonna lie, I often have a weakness in that I appeal to authority. [Not always an error.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) > [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Can you give me some names? Nah, I’m just getting that from [RationalWiki.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism) (Also solidly Team Enlightenment.) > [@](#): > > **Objectivism** is a “philosophy” formulated by novelist Ayn Rand. It has various tenets, but is best known for defining self-interest as a moral virtue. As one might imagine, Objectivism is very popular amongst those who hold a me-first view of the world. It lets them say, "Hey, I’m not being a selfish jerk, _I’m following a philosophy!"_ > > Objectivism has not met wide acceptance in academia. When they bother to comment on it at all, academic philosophers usually dismiss it as a rather juvenile imitation of a real philosophy.[2] It is nevertheless very popular, and informs the beliefs of a great many libertarians and assorted whackjobs. Although it shares some beliefs with conservatism, it has not had much influence on that branch of politics due to its radical, anti-traditional, atheist nature; see, for example, Whittaker Chambers’s criticisms of _Atlas Shrugged._[3] Objectivism introduces religious elements that were previously accessible to atheists only via some forms of communism, viz., an inability to define any non-self-serving epistemology and a violent idiocy on the part of believers. It was called Objectivism because, as Rand was _the single smartest person in the history of the world,_ anything she said had to be objective.[4] But if you want names, see also [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Philosophy): > [@](#): > > **Intellectual impact** > > Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Objectivism since Rand first presented it.[112][113][114][115][116] Objectivism has been called “fiercely anti-academic” because of Rand’s criticism of contemporary intellectuals.[117] > > David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, says Rand’s work is “outside the mainstream” and is more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.[118] Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, but is the subject of entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[119] The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers,[120] the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[121] and The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers.[122] A listing of Rand also appears in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, featuring the assessment “The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. Her outspoken defense of capitalism in works like Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967), and her characterization of her position as a defence of the ‘virtue of selfishness’ in her essay collection of the same title published in 1964, also brought notoriety, but kept her out of the intellectual mainstream.”[100] > > In recent decades Rand’s works are more likely to be encountered in the classroom.[117] The Ayn Rand Society, dedicated to fostering the scholarly study of Objectivism, is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association’s Eastern Division.[123] Aristotle scholar and Objectivist Allan Gotthelf, chairman of the Society, and his colleagues have argued for more academic study of Objectivism, viewing the philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of classical liberalism that is worth debating.[124] Since 1999 a refereed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies began.[125] In 2006 the University of Pittsburgh held a conference focusing on Objectivism.[126] In addition, there is a growing list of Objectivist philosophers, including Tara Smith and James G. Lennox, who hold tenured positions at leading American philosophy departments.[127] Programs and fellowships for the study of Objectivism have been supported at the University of Pittsburgh, University of Texas at Austin and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[128] > > According to one Rand biographer, most people first read Rand’s works in their “formative years.”[129] Rand’s former protégé Nathaniel Branden referred to Rand’s “especially powerful appeal to the young,”[130] while Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute said Rand “appeals to the idealism of youth.”[131] This appeal has alarmed a number of critics of the philosophy.[132] Many of these young people later abandon their positive view of Rand and are often said to have “outgrown” her ideas.[133] Supporters of Rand’s work recognize the phenomenon, but attribute it to the loss of youthful idealism and inability to resist social pressures for intellectual conformity.[131][133] In contrast, Jennifer Burns says some critics “dismiss Rand as a shallow thinker appealing only to adolescents,” although Burns thinks the critics “miss her significance” as a “gateway drug” to right-wing politics.[134] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/35 "2013-07-17T23:16:27Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Don’t care to, sorry. Then do it for the **other** guy’s sake! What are you, a stinking Objectivist?! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Werekoala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7993a0/32.png) [@Werekoala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Werekoala)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/36 "2013-07-17T23:26:20Z")
IMO I think many people believe (especially her critics and of course, college students) that her views are more of a hard-set “guide to life” than a philosophical position. You couldn’t live in a society that embraced the entire letter of her views any more than you could in Plato’s or any other “thinker” throughout history. Philosophy is basically a thought experiment, maybe a bit like a buffet. You’re presented with a wide selection of ideas and thoughts, think “well, that looks ok”, and try a bit of this and a bit of that - it’s not a one-course meal. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/37 "2013-07-17T23:41:21Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > IMO I think many people believe (especially her critics and of course, college students) that her views are more of a hard-set “guide to life” than a philosophical position. And so did Ayn Rand. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/38 "2013-07-18T00:03:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, this ignores the obvious fact that altruism **also** really does exist. It might not be a sound basis for this or that, it might be something you will be disappointed in expecting to find sometimes, but it’s there. **Expecting** people to help others out of the goodness of their hearts might be unreasonable, but that does not make assholes of philanthropists, who actually do so. And there must be some philanthropic impulses even in Rand, or in any philosopher who takes the trouble to publish – you don’t do it for the money, do you? The way you think of altruism - a philosopher trying to spread her ideas, Bill Gates giving away his money because he wants to eradicate polio - is not the sort of altruism that Rand would have an issue with. The altruism she hates, the thing she fights against - is the altruism that is held up as a social ideal in her universe - the kind that is not truly voluntary, the kind that gets nothing(including no happiness/satisfaction from having done something they, personally, wanted) in return. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Well, part of the hate is simply reflecting back at her the hate she expresses for us. Calling my philosophy an “anti-life principle” is pretty childish. She earns hatred by engaging in it. > [@coffeecat](#): > > She constantly accused those who _don’t_ agree of being irrational, evil rotters, which doesn’t exactly encourage calm, unemotional discussion. Okay, so both sides can be ad hominem douchebags. FWIW, [With Charity Toward None](http://www.amazon.com/With-Charity-Toward-None-Philosophy/dp/0822601796) does a decent job of rebutting her, without personal attacks. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > One reason is that she was at least as dogmatic, loud, shrill, unbending, self-righteous, and dismissive of disagreement as Karl Marx, or Rush Limbaugh, or Madalyn Murray O’Hair. The sort of personality at which even persons in complete intellectual agreement are tempted to scream, “Stop helping me!” I don’t know much about her as a person, but “she did it first” doesn’t sound like such a great basis on which to predicate your attitudes. > [@Trinopus](#): > > The valley always perplexes me. What is the oil millionaire going to do? Wash dishes? He doesn’t have any wealth any more. He set fire to his oil wells! Why does he belong in the valley? What skill does he bring? The musician can entertain. John Galt keeps the lights lit. The oil millionaire? He’s now supernumerary. A sponge. The people of the valley will eventually throw him out. > > (Or…kill him? He knows their location.) It isn’t wealth that any of these people aspire to. In fact your memory is probably hazy. Everybody in the valley goes in without wealth. They’re happy to take in anybody who is willing to earn, and doesn’t think that just their existing is enough to entitle them to the fruits of the productive labour of others. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, she isn’t. (And that is not even one of the several meanings of “romantic.”) In the [Romanticism v. Enlightenment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Guizot) war, Rand is **solidly** on the side of Team Enlightenment. So is Karl Marx. (Rousseau, Nietzsche and Hitler play for Team Romanticism.) It was her (re?)definition. I was sorta quoting her. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Don’t care to, sorry. I don’t understand how we can establish a shared basis to debate then. And if you’re going around calling people intellectually immature, you really should be willing to bring more than just opinion… > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I’m using “ignorance” as synonymous with “no relevant education or experience,” not as a schoolyard insult. > > The largest portion of Rand’s followers appear to be - and often prove out to be, after literally exhausting argument - ignorant of other socioeconomic philosophies and thus have no basis to make a rational evaluation of Rand’s. They can only argue from within their understanding, not comparatively. The same is true of most starry-eyed Communists I’ve met. It isn’t that they examined all the schools of thought and chose one, it’s that the first one to come along filled their intellectual tank and eliminated any further need to understand. > > ETA: I simply haven’t run into many well-educated, fully-rounded thinkers who fell for either Marx or Rand. That speaks volumes. There are undoubtedly interesting points to discuss from a more developed viewpoint, but it quickly gets enmeshed with those who don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t care, because Karl/Ayn already gave 'em the answers. Like you do here. It isn’t clear that you’ve been able to understand, yet you are happy to dismiss. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Not always an error.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) The rationalwiki quote exemplifies one of the problems I have with critics. The idea that "it is best known for defining self-interest as a moral virtue. As one might imagine, Objectivism is very popular amongst those who hold a me-first view of the world. It lets them say, “Hey, I’m not being a selfish jerk, I’m following a philosophy!” Her foremost tenet is not self interest, it is rational self interest. The first part of that being that while you have to be self interested, you have to simultaneously expect everyone else to be. John Galt’s statement has a pretty important part that critics overlook - “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, **nor ask another man to live for mine.”** At a personal level, reading her books didn’t make me more selfish - they made me less so. The books always stress, and for the first time (to me) made the point at an intellectual rather than emotional/instinctual level, that while no one is entitled to your life/labour/time and they should earn it, **you are not entitled to the life/labour/time of others either and you have to earn it**. It led to an intellectual respect for doing my bit in interpersonal relationships that I lacked before reading her books. And this is not some message that’s tucked away in a corner of the book. If anyone can read her books and walk away without this message, they have to be trying pretty hard. As such, just “me-first” is a hopelessly mistaken view to take away from her books and quite frankly, if anyone is doing that, they would have been insufferable idiots in any case. I know many people who are fans of the books, and don’t know anyone who has interpreted them to mean that anything goes as long as they get theirs. > [@Werekoala](#): > > IMO I think many people believe (especially her critics and of course, college students) that her views are more of a hard-set “guide to life” than a philosophical position. You couldn’t live in a society that embraced the entire letter of her views any more than you could in Plato’s or any other “thinker” throughout history. Philosophy is basically a thought experiment, maybe a bit like a buffet. You’re presented with a wide selection of ideas and thoughts, think “well, that looks ok”, and try a bit of this and a bit of that - it’s not a one-course meal. I agree with this, her views have certain built in(though explicit) premises that are wrong(she devalues subjective experiences far too much, and believes man can be an entirely rational animal) and render them unsuitable for wholesale adoption, but relative to the opprobrium I come across for her views, these things are minor. And a lot of her ideas should actually render her pretty popular on this board. They entirely reject woo, religion and the like and are very friendly to empiricism, which fits right in with the Straight Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/39 "2013-07-18T00:14:55Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > . . . It isn’t wealth that any of these people aspire to. In fact your memory is probably hazy. Everybody in the valley goes in without wealth. They’re happy to take in anybody who is willing to earn, and doesn’t think that just their existing is enough to entitle them to the fruits of the productive labour of others. . . . They bought and paid for goods and services with gold coins. They did have wealth. They cared for it very much. They kept their location secret. This is far, far from “happy to take in anybody who is willing to earn.” The story at that point had degenerated into bad myth. Another serious objection is that our society can easily run itself by the efforts of the “second string” of creative people. Take away the top fifty, and the next-most skilled and intelligent top seventy-five will run the economy very effectively indeed. The world is not upheld by a single Atlas, but by a myriad myriads of caryatides. You and me. We uphold the world. “We are John Galt.” ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/40 "2013-07-18T00:15:06Z")
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: \* [The Lord of the Rings](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10254806.The_Lord_of_the_Rings) \* and \* [Atlas Shrugged](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9365.Atlas_Shrugged) \*. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784.md?page=3)