# 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:** 2
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/21 "2025-11-01T16:47:23Z")
Here’s my takeaway on Ayn Rand: - Rand was a decades-long meth addict, so take that for however it might have induced a degree of mania in her thinking. - Rand saw collectivism at its near-worst (even Lenin was better than Mao). The rest of her life was a reaction against those would reduce humanity to a Borg Collective hive species– _Homo Alvearius_. Yes, insane totalitarian collectivism is bad. - Rand was almost as skeptical of neoliberalism. She pointed out that if you **have** to be unselfish and generous and loving towards others _OR ELSE_, then it is not in any moral sense charity: it’s an obligation; a tax. - Ironically, Rand responded to the grandiose claim of Marxism/Leninism to be an all-encompassing theory of the nature of human society and civilization which was self-evidently correct and brooked no possible dissent, by formulating a theory of the nature of human society and civilization which claimed to be self-evidently correct and brooked no possible dissent. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/22 "2025-11-01T16:48:39Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I suppose the real debate regarding Ayn is how this works in practice. What prevents once productive wealthy people from turning into looters and moochers who use their wealth and power to stifle competition? Does the government have a role in creating common infrastructure? Stuff like that. I’m not really sure I see the terms of debate here, but I’ll give it a go, as I see it. The flaw of most libertarian philosophy is that it consciously ignores away the details of history and society, and assumes that the world is set up something like a game board where everyone has a fair starting position and set of resources. This guarantees that nobody can owe anyone anything other than whatever agreements they negotiate, because everyone had the same opportunities and abilities, so whatever they have or don’t have is a skill issue. Right at the outset we see this is a problem, because the world isn’t like that. Because of the effects of history, some people are born on third base, others at the bottom of the batting order. This inequality might be a tolerable thing if that’s as far as it went, but the problem is the people born to advantage can’t seem to resist using it to take whatever the less-advantaged people have. This has to be policed or else we end up back in an era of feudalism. As far as things like common infrastructure, that’s more than I have time to get into, but just like managing the balance of power, there are other shared responsibilities that private industry either won’t undertake, or they’ll do it in a way tilted toward their own interests. This is important for things that everyone uses but can’t easily be torn up and redone because it didn’t work very well the first time. There are common functions that are just better handled by a shared government. The fantasy of libertarian societies isn’t whether they can exist or not, it’s whether they can exist at a scale that matters. My answer is that if that were possible, then it would’ve already happened. The fact that it hasn’t happened shows that it’s not something that emerges naturally. The obstacles in assembling the land and capital for a new society demonstrate exactly _why_ equality and rent-seeking are things that need to be managed. The people who gain control first have a perpetual advantage. Those who would create a libertarian society should appreciate this better than anyone, but it’s the one thing their philosophy _requires_ them to reject, so in reality they end up either being effectively Republicans or aimlessly batting around microstate fantasies on message boards. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/23 "2025-11-01T16:57:41Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > IMO the main misunderstanding when it comes to Randian philosophy is the idea the American right wing actually believed in it. All the years of prattling on about liberty and freedom and protecting from government oppression. I don’t think the right wing as a whole ever embraced Rand’s Objectivism. And she absolutely hated Libertarians for some reason. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/24 "2025-11-01T17:00:51Z")
The biggest problem with a stateless society (which may or may not be congruent with a libertarian society) is how does it defend itself against the armies of a state? That’s really the prime question: if it somehow can, the details will sort themselves out, and if it can’t then the whole question is moot. Some people think that such pre-Bronze Age settlements as Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük offer evidence for nascent stateless civilizations existing before they were annihilated by the rise of states and organized state armies. ---
**Author:** ![Ellecram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellecram/32/18948_2.png) [@Ellecram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellecram)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/25 "2025-11-01T17:28:08Z")
[quote=“carrps, post:16, topic:1024474, full:true”] > [@msmith537](#): > > First of all, her name Ayn is pronounced rhymes with MINE, not like Ann. I just learned that.. Really? I think 90% of the people I hear saying her name pronounce it correctly. _Shrug._ [/quote]I’ve never heard it pronounced incorrectly. Of course I don’t hear the name spoken very often with the crowds I hang around. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/26 "2025-11-01T17:28:37Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I don’t think the right wing as a whole ever embraced Rand’s Objectivism. Maybe but for a long time every right winger I knew in person or online claimed to be. They wouldn’t shut up about all that crap. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/27 "2025-11-01T17:59:28Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > On the other hand, Rand’s philosophy is that the proper goal for everyone is to maximize their achievements and well-being, strongly suggesting that charitable works are the province of fools (or if you prefer, traitors to themselves) who abandon her Prime Directive. “Strongly suggesting” is your interpretation, and not accurate. What she actually said is contained in the paragraph you quoted, and it is not this. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/28 "2025-11-01T18:30:26Z")
Just how would a free market function without government protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights? ---
**Author:** ![xtenkfarpl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c2a13f/32.png) [@xtenkfarpl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xtenkfarpl)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/29 "2025-11-01T18:35:20Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The biggest problem with a stateless society (which may or may not be congruent with a libertarian society) is how does it defend itself against the armies of a state? Can such a society even exist for any length of time once the population gets much bigger than a village? As has been discussed in another thread about whether the ‘state’ has a monopoly on violence, it seems to be an unfortunate fact that it’s easier to steal your necessities then to work to produce them. Warlords seem to breed like bacteria in environments without some central authority, especially given the easy availability of automatic weapons since WWII. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/30 "2025-11-01T18:39:46Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Just how would a free market function without government protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights? A problem summed up by: > [@LSLGuy](#): > > Like all variants of libertarianism, it implicitly assumes nobody is a jerk. And really this is it. A society of altruistic saints wouldn’t need a government at all; at most a tradition of rules for sorting out misunderstandings. A society (if you could call it that) of ruthlessly selfish savages would get the Darkseid-level iron fisted despotism it deserved. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/31 "2025-11-01T19:04:46Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > First of all, her name Ayn is pronounced rhymes with MINE, not like Ann. I just learned that. I deliberately pronounce it “Ann” because “Ayn Rand” is a pseudonym for Alisa Rosenbaum. > [@msmith537](#): > > - **Objective Reality:** Reality exists independently of anyone’s mind, thoughts, or feelings. This may be slightly problematic. Some quantum theorists suggest that reality exists _because we observe it_ (which is something of a misinterpretation/oversimplification of the actual hypotheses) so “objective reality” may not be a valid concept. Just as I prate on about how the past that matters is not what actually happened but the past that _we believe_ happened, and so it is not set-in-stone but dynamic because our understanding of what happened keeps changing. Reality is a non-simple thing that cannot be understood in objective, mechanistic terms such as we can make sense of. > [@msmith537](#): > > - **Rational Self-Interest:** The moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness and well-being. > - **Laissez-faire capitalism:** The only social system that respects individual rights is one with zero government interference, where individuals trade and interact voluntarily. > … > - **Rational Egoism:** The view that rational self-interest is the standard of morality, and altruism (self-sacrifice) is not a moral ideal. One point to the “stateless utopia” that is overlooked is that, for stability, the state must establish the terms of trade (currency) and title. We assume that Tybalt Coune owns all that stuff because the state issued documents supporting his claims to it. This is a thing that the glibertarians elide when arguing in favor of minimal government. The cost of defending one’s property without support of the state might exceed its worth as the holdings get large. As for “rational self-interest”, one _could_ argue that it is rational to invest a portion of one’s profits into stabilizing the society in which one’s enterprises operate. Most really wealthy people seem to be so focused on expanding the bottom line that they refuse to devote any brain cells to the holistic view, that in order to be rich and comfortable, one must also attend to those less well-off, to forestall assault upon one’s empire. Hence, the task of keeping the non-wealthy in reasonable check gets delegated to the state. ---
**Author:** ![xtenkfarpl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c2a13f/32.png) [@xtenkfarpl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xtenkfarpl)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/32 "2025-11-01T19:14:24Z")
To go back to the OP: > [@msmith537](#): > > **Objective Reality:** Reality exists independently of anyone’s mind, thoughts, or feelings. > > The human ability to reason is the only tool for gaining knowledge and for navigating reality. Agree with the first, but the second is a bit Platonic. You need reason AND observation and experiment. Armchair theory is worth nothing. Also none of this forces any type of social or economic system. ‘An Is does not imply an Ought’, as Hume observed. And it has to be said that she was a lousy, clunky, fiction writer and her heros were nasty and unlikeable. If she’d stuck to exploring the implications of the first tenet, I’d have a lot more respect for her. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/33 "2025-11-01T19:31:21Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > **Integrity:** Adhering to one’s rational principles and values. If one gets to pick one’s own “rational” principles and values, I’m not sure I’d call adhering to them “integrity”. I’m pretty sure you need some honesty and maybe a smidge of morality in there somewhere. Mike Johnson follows Mike Johnson’s principles (hold onto power at all costs) and values (things to ignore if they interfere with power grabbing) pretty universally, but I certainly wouldn’t count that as integrity. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/34 "2025-11-01T19:56:21Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > The problem is, “rational” (or “enlightened’‘ in one TV interview I saw) is made to do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to self-interest: who decides, and by what right, what self-interested action is objectively “rational” or “enlightened”, and who applies that to everyday human interactions? I assume it means each individual acts in their own interests, based on the information they have available. It is way seeking an objective truth to reality is such a high priority. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/35 "2025-11-01T20:43:46Z")
“[If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.](https://www.azquotes.com/quote/240105)” “[As to altruism — it has never been alive. It is the poison of death in the blood of Western civilization, and men survived it only to the extent to which they neither believed nor practiced it.](https://www.azquotes.com/quote/862109)” “[Guilt is altruism’s stock in trade, and the inducing of guilt is its only means of self-perpetuation.](https://www.azquotes.com/quote/876133)” “[If a man speculates on what ‘society’ should do for the poor, he accepts thereby the collectivist premise that men’s lives belong to society and that he, as a member of society, has the right to dispose of them…that psychological confession reveals the enormity of the extent to which altruism erodes men’s capacity to grasp the concept of rights or the value of an individual life.](https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1410342)” - Ayn Rand OK, so she viewed altruistic people more as evil than fools. I stand corrected. 🙂 ---
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/36 "2025-11-01T20:53:35Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > she viewed altruistic people more as evil than fools Her definition of altruism may be different from yours. She regarded it as not the same as charity, but as self-sacrifice, against one’s own welfare. Your quote from Playboy was about charity. Your paragraph that I quoted also mentioned “charitable works.” If you bear in mind the distinction between charity and altruism, you will understand her opinions better. > [@eschereal](#): > > I deliberately pronounce it “Ann” because “Ayn Rand” is a pseudonym for Alisa Rosenbaum. What exactly is your objection to her choosing a pen name for herself? > [@xtenkfarpl](#): > > You need reason AND observation and experiment. Armchair theory is worth nothing. Observation and experiment without reason are useless. The epistemological distinction she is making is between reason on the one hand, and emotion or mystical insight on the other hand, to interpret ones observations (and experiments, if any). ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/37 "2025-11-01T20:59:05Z")
What Ayn Rand never seemed to consider is the impact there’d be if we quit trying to teach altruism to kids, in favor of self interest. People are _born_ selfish, nobody needs to be taught it. In Randitaria, there’d be no great schoolteachers–they’d all go into better-paying fields. No one would want to serve their country. (Chuck Yeager would have been some billionaire’s private pilot). Or doctors and nurses who alleviate suffering, for low wages, in poor communities. I know, I know, she never said you _couldn’t_ do those things. But by telling people to be selfish, they would be less inclined to. I personally doubt I would have amounted to much if I’d been taught to think only of my happiness and well-being. Prisons are full of people like that. I feel that I’ve understood Ayn Rand more from learning about her life than by reading her impenetrable writings. I used to at least admire her for her courage to embrace her atheism while seeking kinship with the right during the Cold War. I later concluded that that was a reaction to the anti-Semitism her family experienced at the hands of pre-Bolshevic Orthodox Russians. I also wonder if her opposition to “the collective” is another reaction to _post_-Bolshevic Russia. Which might explain her implicit declaration that she was so “objective”? ---
**Author:** ![Ancient\_Nerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed655f/32.png) [@Ancient\_Nerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ancient_Nerd)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/38 "2025-11-01T21:01:58Z")
Insurance is an area where rational self interest leads to a breakdown in the free market. It is in my self interest to join a pool of people to pay for rare disasters, bad stuff that could but probably won’t happen. Once I have a claim, I have no reason to care what the cost of repairs will be. The insurance is paying for it, not me. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/39 "2025-11-01T21:15:25Z")
Idiot trump pretty well exemplifies living the tenets of Objectivism: the single minded pursuit of your personal objectives. Now imagine 500 of those as an isolated island community. Or 8 billion of those on an interconnected planet. I predict … difficulties. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2025, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/40 "2025-11-01T21:43:12Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > I feel that I’ve understood Ayn Rand more from learning about her life than by reading her impenetrable writings. I used to at least admire her for her courage to embrace her atheism while seeking kinship with the right during the Cold War. I later concluded that that was a reaction to the anti-Semitism her family experienced at the hands of pre-Bolshevic Orthodox Russians. I also wonder if her opposition to “the collective” is another reaction to _post_-Bolshevic Russia. She wrote what she wrote, and throwing this kind of “analysis” at it is just anti-fan wanking. She may have been and done all those things, but it says nothing about her stated philosophy. And among philosophers, her writings are the least opaque I can remember coming across (which subjects her to quite some lack of respect in the academic community). You can believe what you want about what her philosophy is, of course, but I don’t think you can justify it on this basis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474.md?page=3)