# Most people get Ayn Rand's philosophy wrong **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2025, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474 "2025-11-01T11:57:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2025, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/341 "2025-12-14T14:18:50Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > That’s why it’s good argument. The Randians are meant to be the rational ones, who believe in objectivism, unlike those dumb collectivists who are convinced by their subjective moral frameworks to believe in all sorts of crazy impractical fantasies that will never work in practice. Which they would know if they actually took the objectivist approach of those smart Randians,. > > But the outlandish fantasies Randians need to come true to provide basic societal needs like, roads, courts, police, sewage, etc. without taxes are way more impractical. The argument is usually “the free market will provide”. As I mentioned previously, I do have a formal education in civil engineering, so actually understand in practice how large public works actually get built. I suppose my brain can comprehend a world where cities and intercity transportation like roads and rail evolve organically through private development. I suspect it might look very different from our world (perhaps bizarrely so) and may not necessarily be better or worse. Maybe rail becomes more of a dominant form of long range transportation without state funded interstates and gasoline subsidies. Maybe cities eschew efficient grid designs in favor of bizarre layouts based on whatever street patterns the developers could negotiate. Maybe Central Park is either paved over with skyscrapers or privatized so billionaires don’t lose their views. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2025, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/342 "2025-12-14T14:24:40Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Few people bat an eye about the eye-watering waste around a [failed littoral combat ship](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navys-zumwalt-class-destroyer-245-billion-failure-213132), but there’s so much hand-wringing over the idea that preventing a child from starvation might give them the wrong idea about their place in the world In fairness some Randians do\* complain about both things (specifically the ones who have no hope if being elected to national office in the US, and so don’t need to keep the military industrial complex constituency on side). But then you’re into fantasies about defense based on plucky gun toting voluntary militias defending America against foreign powers without all those evil taxes going to those collectivist hippies in the defense dept. ‘\*’ - or did until Trump turned up and then they decided authoritarian fascist tyrants forcing them to pay taxes for wars of aggression and big palaces was a-ok ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2025, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/343 "2025-12-14T14:32:59Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I suppose my brain can comprehend a world where cities and intercity transportation like roads and rail evolve organically through private development And I can comprehend a world where the dictatorship of the proletariat will lead inevitably to true democracy. But only a little bit objectivism is required to see neither world is the world we are actually living in. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2025, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/344 "2025-12-14T21:56:33Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Anarchist:“_What_ private property?”. Owner: _"That_ property, there. Take it, and me and my boys will kill you." There’s always going to be private property, the only question is if the law _acknowledges_ it, or if ownership is instead enforced with threats and violence. Anarchy, _realistically_ doesn’t mean nobody is in charge; it means that whomever has the most ability to apply violence is in charge. And yes, that’s not what anarchists _say_ anarchy means; but then, Objectivists claim Objectivism isn’t just an excuse for the wealthy to crush and exploit those less wealthy. Both are wrong. The claims of an ideology and the reality of it typically have little in common. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2025, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/345 "2025-12-14T22:45:49Z")
That’s the problem with real estate. Even in a world where everyone is perfectly equal and nobody has more than anyone else, some people are going to be living closer to the beach. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2025, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/346 "2025-12-15T03:45:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Owner: _"That_ property, there. Take it, and me and my boys will kill you." …until somebody with more boys comes along. That’s just anarchy. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Anarchy, _realistically_ doesn’t mean nobody is in charge; it means that whomever has the most ability to apply violence is in charge. Yep, that’s entirely true. Of course, Anarc_ **hism** _ doesn’t mean “nobody’s in charge”, so anarch_ **y** _ is irrelevant to what anarch_ **ists** _ want. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/347 "2025-12-17T13:52:50Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > My theory is that by continuing to invent “accountant/poet/childcare” jobs without increasing “grower” jobs, we will encounter limits of useful jobs to invent while driving up the costs of the “vegetables” (metaphorically speaking). First, technology changes. Historically, it’s the people who were only trainer for “grower” jobs who were stranded in an economy that didn’t need them any more. Farmhands, assembly line workers, coal miners… Second, no one “invented” childcare jobs. I usually use obtaining food and caring for children as the two fundamental jobs that every human society absolutely needs to fill. All the rest is ornamentation. And I have long felt that a fundamental flaw of Rand is that no one in any of her books is a child, or seems to have ever been a child, or has children of their own. Because despite her worship of the powerful individual, every one is us enters this world as a helpless mewling. And a lot of us will leave it that way, too. And civilizations care for their children (and their elderly, unless they are incredibly impoverished). > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > It’s true they are entirely indifferent to the situation of the poor, and don’t really care if they live or die. > > But few are callous enough to outright state “fuck the poor”. Huh, i thought that was kind of the defining feature of Randianism. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/348 "2025-12-17T14:19:52Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Huh, i thought that was kind of the defining feature of Randianism. Putatively it is, but few of them will say it openly. They prefer to live in abstractions and platitudes and not grapple with the dirty consequences. That’s more the province of Libertarians, who are perfectly willing to be that gauche, which is why Rand loathed them. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/349 "2025-12-17T15:53:15Z")
I only dip into this thread from time to time, but it seems that the emphasis has shifted strongly from what Rand wrote herself, to what supposed followers of Rand or supposed followers of her philosophy believe in. I think it’s worth noting that these are often different things, sometimes very different. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/350 "2025-12-17T15:59:06Z")
Well, i may be out of touch, then. Like everyone else, i read Rand as a teen. But o have no idea what her followers claim. Until this thread, i didn’t think she _had_ followers, in any organized way, and assumed that people who admired her identified as libertarians. And once a friend pointed out the total absence of children in her milieu, i have rejected the rest of her philosophy our if hand. Because any philosophy that doesn’t account for rearing children is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/351 "2025-12-17T16:42:16Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > I only dip into this thread from time to time, but it seems that the emphasis has shifted strongly from what Rand wrote herself, to what supposed followers of Rand or supposed followers of her philosophy believe in. I think it’s worth noting that these are often different things, sometimes very different. I would tend to agree. In fact my whole point of starting the thread was that as far as I interpreted it, Rands philosophy was not: - Fuck the poor (at least not deliberately and maliciously so) - Only the interests of the rich matter - Anarchy - No government, public infrastructure or taxes at all - Every man for himself It seemed like she promoted a philosophy that had minimal government or taxation which mostly ensured to protect rights and enforce contracts. People collaborated but it was transactional and voluntary. I suppose charity existed too, but it was based on people’s goodwill, not mandated through government. IOW, you are free to donate to charity, join the military to protect your country, and start your own business with minimal regulatory interference as opposed to being heavily taxed to pay for a welfare state, drafted, or forced to work where the state tells you. We can debate specific implementations of that philosophy but the core tenet seemed to be that people should be free as to the extent possible to pursue their own economic and personal interests and not be compelled to prioritize the interests of the state or the collective. But what I tend to find is that many supporters of Rand or her philosophy (even if they are unfamiliar with her works) are people who operate from a position of economic privilege. It has become aligned with a sort of tech/finance bro mentality that I’ve witnessed over the years where people who have been born on third and underhand-pitched their way to a home run pat themselves on the back thinking their great wealth is a sign of some superior ability or alignment with the greater market. The argument I would give to that is think about deciding to take a) half the firemen, construction workers, nurses, teachers, policemen or b) half the lawyers, venture capitalists, management consultants, and phone sanitizers on a big spaceship and send it into the sun. Which would cause greater harm to society? > [@puzzlegal](#): > > First, technology changes. Historically, it’s the people who were only trainer for “grower” jobs who were stranded in an economy that didn’t need them any more. Farmhands, assembly line workers, coal miners… > > Second, no one “invented” childcare jobs. I usually use obtaining food and caring for children as the two fundamental jobs that every human society absolutely needs to fill. All the rest is ornamentation. > > And I have long felt that a fundamental flaw of Rand is that no one in any of her books is a child, or seems to have ever been a child, or has children of their own. > > Because despite her worship of the powerful individual, every one is us enters this world as a helpless mewling. And a lot of us will leave it that way, too. And civilizations care for their children (and their elderly, unless they are incredibly impoverished). To be honest, a Randian life of constant work seems empty and tedious to me. I liked, but didn’t necessarily love my old job. I ostensibly also like spending time with my wife and kids. I also resent the current corporate environment seems to push the idea that “work / life balance” is an unreasonable expectation. Almost as if the ideal employee is an 25 to 38 year old workaholic incel with no interests outside the corporation hoping to amass enough fortune so they don’t have to work after turning 40 and Corporate America no longer has a use for them. I don’t think Rand’s vision included de factor corporate white collar slavery. But as you say, there isn’t much in her writings about how people exist her imagined childless societies where everyone’s sole purpose is individual pursuit of their professional goals. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/352 "2025-12-17T17:49:36Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > , i thought that was kind of the defining feature of Randianism It just seems that way to you from your naive subjective emotional viewpoint. Actually Randians have a sophisticated intellectual viewpoint based on a rational objective assessment of the realities of the economic and political system, it’s absolutely not just “f\_ck the poor”. What’s that you say? Trump just rolled up and gets to say whatever terrible thing he wants with no repercussions. In that case nvm. Absolutely “f\_ck the poor, the blacks, and women, and gays and everyone else I don’t like”. LOL you took us seriously with all that randian bs. Sucker! ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/353 "2025-12-17T18:19:00Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > People collaborated but it was transactional and voluntary. Nothing about collaboration is voluntary if you need to collaborate today in order to feed your children. The idea that this isn’t deliberately “fuck the poor”, has more to do with her lack of vision than any realistic result of the philosophy. I’m now imagining Bea Arthur - Did you collaborate last week? No. Did you TRY to collaborate last week? Yes! ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/354 "2025-12-17T18:25:29Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > […] once a friend pointed out the total absence of children in her milieu, i have rejected the rest of her philosophy our if hand. The Simpsons had [a fine segment featuring the **The Ayn Rand School for Tots**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wob10lOLWY). That’s 4 minutes of it. It includes references to several famous movies. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/355 "2025-12-17T18:38:24Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > And once a friend pointed out the total absence of children in her milieu, i have rejected the rest of her philosophy our if hand. Because any philosophy that doesn’t account for rearing children is a non-starter. Hopefully this “rejection out of hand” was based on the latter statement, rather than she and her husband not having children. People who don’t have children are certainly capable of participating in determining societal policies that affect child-rearing. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/356 "2025-12-17T18:44:51Z")
There’s also an extended sequence in _The Fountainhead_ depicting a school for developmentally disabled children, for whom Rand(’s narrator) shows nothing but contempt. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/357 "2025-12-17T19:54:32Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Hopefully this “rejection out of hand” was based on the latter statement, rather than she and her husband not having children. I didn’t even know she had no children, although it’s hardly surprising. Many people who don’t have children of their own remember being children, or have friends or siblings with children, or at least have an intellectual understanding that new humans don’t leap out of Zeus’s head as fully-formed adults. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/358 "2025-12-17T20:02:10Z")
I wonder if @puzzlegal meant “oeuvre” (body of work) instead of “milieu” (environment). ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/359 "2025-12-17T20:09:50Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > > > It’s true they are entirely indifferent to the situation of the poor, and don’t really care if they live or die. > > > > But few are callous enough to outright state “fuck the poor”. > > Huh, i thought that was kind of the defining feature of Randianism. It’s not _quite_ that harsh; it’s more the case that Randianism is the refusal to regard the poor as martyred saints simply because they’re poor. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/360 "2025-12-17T20:17:21Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > I wonder if @puzzlegal meant “oeuvre” (body of work) instead of “milieu” (environment). That’s not really my legerdemain… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474.md?page=19)