# 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:** 7
**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 7, 2025, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/121 "2025-11-07T20:21:54Z")
Nonsense. Any one of us isn’t big enough to take down the system by being selfish and greedy. So it’s rational for _me_ to be brave enough to be selfish and greedy while expecting everybody else to be the chicken chumps who keep it all going by not being (as) selfish and greedy. Assuming the reflexive idea that “I’m just an ordinary schmoe so I should choose for me what I wish all ordinary schmoes should do” is very much not Randian. ---
**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:** [November 7, 2025, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/122 "2025-11-07T20:39:31Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Rational self-interest seems to be misinterpreted here. I would think that participating in a sustainable market system and all that went with it would be in your rational self-interest. Selfishness and greed would not be rational. Backwards reasoning is involved. The point is to _justify_ absolute, amoral selfishness; therefore, selfishness and greed _are_ rational and good for society. Because any other position is unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/123 "2025-11-10T17:21:23Z")
Again…not what “rational self interest” means and not really consistent with Ayn Rand’s writings. I would argue that Rand supported a very specific type of “selfishness and greed”. If you started a company, you should be able to grow it as large as you want to or can. You should pay your people at least a fair wage based on what the market supports. There is nothing inherently “evil” about large corporations or extremely wealthy people and families. Forcing the transfer of wealth or printing money to give to people unwilling or unable to contribute to the economy was unethical in her mind. At the very least it was unproductive and creates disincentives that ultimately harm the economy for everyone. Ayn Rand’s strikers in Atlas Shrugged didn’t “take down the system by being selfish and greedy”. Just the opposite in fact. They simply decided they weren’t going to run their companies anymore. The system went down on its own because no one knew how to run anything. Now keep in mind that Rand wrote her books in the 50s and focused mostly on old school industries like railroads, steel mills, and mines that actually produced stuff. I would be curious about her opinion about our modern service-base economy. Like would she view Silicon Valley as a hub of innovation and ingenuity or would it appear in the same manner of lunacy as it presented by Mike Judge. I would also suspect Ayn Rand might view our bloated finance industry less as a center of wealth creation and more as a sort of industrialized looter culture using fraud and accounting tricks to extract real wealth and transferring to people who had no hand in its production. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/124 "2025-11-10T17:25:32Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > You should pay your people at least a fair wage based on what the market supports. And there is the hole big enough to drive a perpetual motion machine through. If the market will only support near-slave or slave wages, what does the word “fair” _actually mean_? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/125 "2025-11-10T18:16:23Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Ayn Rand’s strikers in Atlas Shrugged didn’t “take down the system by being selfish and greedy”. Just the opposite in fact. They simply decided they weren’t going to run their companies anymore. The system went down on its own because no one knew how to run anything Comrade Musk has done some absolutely top notch agitprop work combating this Randian theory. He is a walking counter example to Rand’s idea that these super rich heads of industry got where they are by being competent and are indispensable to the running of their companies. A single clip of Elon Musk makes the most utopian communist ideas of the workers seizing control of production seem realistic in comparison to Rands ideas ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/126 "2025-11-10T18:25:10Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Ayn Rand’s strikers in Atlas Shrugged didn’t “take down the system by being selfish and greedy”. Just the opposite in fact. They simply decided they weren’t going to run their companies anymore. The system went down on its own because no one knew how to run anything. Ayn Rand’s characters were overly broad stereotypes at best that make “Aesop’s Fables” seem like in-depth analysis in comparison. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/127 "2025-11-10T18:25:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@msmith537](#): > > > > You should pay your people at least a fair wage based on what the market supports. > > And there is the hole big enough to drive a perpetual motion machine through. If the market will only support near-slave or slave wages, what does the word “fair” _actually mean_? What does “slave” or “near-slave” wages or “what the market supports” mean for that matter? I think a fair presumption is that if someone is able and willing to work a regular job, they should be able to afford a reasonable standard of living. So I think it’s also fair when prevailing market conditions don’t allow that to happen we ask why. We take our kids on a lot of historic tours around the tri-state NY area. Milton Hershey created Hershey, PA as a company town to support his chocolate factory. While not perfect, he at least had a certain “benevolent paternalism” with regard to the design and how his workers were treated. In contrasts, other company towns like the one created for the Lackawanna Coal Mine in Scranton, PA using the “company store” model were highly exploitive. But really in both cases it creates a sort of “feudal” economy where the workers are directly tied to the employer. Even if the employer is largely benevolent, the worker’s rights and personal lives are still subject to the whim of the employer beyond the simple employer-employee relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/128 "2025-11-10T18:33:23Z")
I agree. In real life people just cannot afford to move their families around looking for a better job and/or better wages, and “asking why” openly is a great way to lose your job to someone who _doesn’t_ ask those questions. Btw, it is less a case of Hersey being a great company town and Scranton being a crappy company town, because in most cases towns like Hershey were a rarity. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyEcks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnnyecks/32/18197_2.png) [@JohnnyEcks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnyEcks)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/129 "2025-11-10T20:11:24Z")
Rand wasn’t a capitalist, as much as she thought she was. Her ethics demanded that you make your money in the right way, and for the right reasons. She simply assumed that once everyone realized the correctness of her philosophy, everyone would immediately adopt correct behavior. It’s funny because if people actually behaved like that, communism would work just fine, too. Objectivism isn’t wrong, per se. It can’t be used to actually improve things because it can’t enforce its own precepts. It’s just irrelevant. Anyway, I highly recommend “Ayn Rand and the World She Made” by Anne C. Heller. ---
**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 10, 2025, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/130 "2025-11-10T20:24:39Z")
How did Ayn Rand feel about protecting the environment? Dealing with the so-called “tragedy of the commons”? Concerns about pollution, husbanding resources, etc. increased in the years since her active years as a writer. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/131 "2025-11-10T20:32:16Z")
We assume your self interest is enlightened enough. No problem. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2025, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/132 "2025-11-10T20:40:25Z")
> [@JohnnyEcks](#): > > Rand wasn’t a capitalist, as much as she thought she was. Her ethics demanded that you make your money in the right way, and for the right reasons. She simply assumed that once everyone realized the correctness of her philosophy, everyone would immediately adopt correct behavior. It’s funny because if people actually behaved like that, communism would work just fine, too. Objectivism isn’t wrong, per se. It can’t be used to actually improve things because it can’t enforce its own precepts. It’s just irrelevant. > > Anyway, I highly recommend “Ayn Rand and the World She Made” by Anne C. Heller. I would agree with this 100%. Rand’s failing is not that she preached unrestrained capitalism. It’s that she failed to account for how the market wouldn’t necessary limit and by the very nature of unrestrained capitalism could actually lead to the very “looter / moocher” behavior she harshly criticized. ---
**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 10, 2025, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/133 "2025-11-10T22:10:50Z")
> [@JohnnyEcks](#): > > She simply assumed that once everyone realized the correctness of her philosophy, everyone would immediately adopt correct behavior. It’s funny because if people actually behaved like that, communism would work just fine, too. Hence as I said, > [@Lumpy](#): > > 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:** ![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 10, 2025, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/134 "2025-11-10T23:37:55Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > > [@msmith537](#): > > > > I ponder this as having children forces you to actually have to consider the needs of another human over your own. > > Good point. Not to mention considering that the needs of your children outweigh the needs of others. ---
**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 11, 2025, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/135 "2025-11-11T02:18:40Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > It’s that she failed to account for how the market wouldn’t necessary limit and by the very nature of unrestrained capitalism could actually lead to the very “looter / moocher” behavior she harshly criticized. The prime directive of human nature is to become a looter/moocher. The only difference is whether any particular set of looter/moochers are on the top of the political/economic heap, or the bottom, or sorta salted all throughout the middle ranks of that hierarchy. She reserved _all_ her opprobrium for the looter/moochers of the bottom & lower middle. While carefully ignoring the inevitable rise of those at the top. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/136 "2025-11-11T03:50:14Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The prime directive of human nature is to become a looter/moocher. The only difference is whether any particular set of looter/moochers are on the top of the political/economic heap, or the bottom, or sorta salted all throughout the middle ranks of that hierarchy. > > She reserved _all_ her opprobrium for the looter/moochers of the bottom & lower middle. While carefully ignoring the inevitable rise of those at the top. That makes me think you haven’t actually read her work. She is highly critical of the top of the political/economic heap who engaged in self-serving protectionist and wealth redistribution policies under the guise of the “greater good”. I’m not saying Ayn Rand was right about everything. But her main point didn’t seem to be “rich people should be able to do whatever they want because they are so smart”. ---
**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:** [November 11, 2025, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/137 "2025-11-11T11:33:47Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > There is nothing inherently “evil” about large corporations or extremely wealthy people and families. This is only true if they created their wealth _ex nihilo_. If it’s in _any_ way based on owning real property, anywhere down the chain, they’re ultimately thieves. ---
**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 11, 2025, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/138 "2025-11-11T11:38:10Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The prime directive of human nature is to become a looter/moocher. The only difference is whether any particular set of looter/moochers are on the top of the political/economic heap, or the bottom, or sorta salted all throughout the middle ranks of that hierarchy. This is an incredibly insightful and concise critique of Rand, and quite a succinct and comprehensive analysis in itself. We could call it “moocher distribution theory”. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/139 "2025-11-11T11:58:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > This is only true if they created their wealth _ex nihilo_. If it’s in _any_ way based on owning real property, anywhere down the chain, they’re ultimately thieves. I suppose if you believe this nonsense then in your mind it’s perfectly acceptable to support policies that take wealth from one person and give it to another. Because every is a bunch of thieves anyway, right? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474/140 "2025-11-11T12:00:08Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > > [@LSLGuy](#): > > > > The prime directive of human nature is to become a looter/moocher. The only difference is whether any particular set of looter/moochers are on the top of the political/economic heap, or the bottom, or sorta salted all throughout the middle ranks of that hierarchy. > > This is an incredibly insightful and concise critique of Rand, and quite a succinct and comprehensive analysis in itself. We could call it “moocher distribution theory”. Except that it is actually the complete opposite of what she believed or wrote about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-get-ayn-rands-philosophy-wrong/1024474.md?page=8)