Most Libertarians regard her almost as their holy woman, but why did she hold them in such contempt, calling them the “Hippies of the right”? What was the big incompatibility between objectavism and Libertarianism?
PS, please keep the Libertarian and Rand bashing to a minimum.
Frankly, I think it was pure snobbishness. She saw Objectivism as being this incredibly serious, intellectual pursuit, while Libertarians were just a bunch of hippies that wanted the man off their backs so they could smoke dope and screw around.
It wasn’t just Libertarians she hated. She hated just about anyone on the right that didn’t buy into her philosophy. She called The National Review the most evil magazine in America, because it associated God with Conservativism.
Frankly, I think it was a reflection of her poisonous personality, rather than anything actually resulting from her philosophy. She showed an amazing lack of tolerance for any dissention. Small wonder that libertarians, who came to the same conclusions that she did without her input, were hated.
Sorry if this came across as Rand Bashing, but I think it’s fairly accurate.
My understanding, after having watched the documentary “Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life” is that Rand viewed conservatives (and perhaps some Libertarians) as apologists who did not adequately defend and explain the relationship between market forces and personal liberty. Conservatives tend to rationalize that a market economy should exist because it is more practical and ulitmately better for the populace as a whole (which Rand viewed as a collectivist arguement), whereas Rand would argue that a market economy should exist because it results naturally from an absence of force and coercion.
mangoldm wrote:
I agree with your statement about most conservatives’ argument that a free market is best because it provides the most. I get frustrated with this too.
But the second part I don’t understand. Libertarians argue that a market economy is best because it’s free (at least I do), which is what you’re saying Rand argues also. So why did she hate Libertarians? Maybe you’re just saying that she hated them but ultimately agreed with them.
In reading Rand’s two main works, what I disagreed with most was her disdain for folk music. She bad-mouthed it because it’s not the product of a lone hero.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Frankly, I think it was pure snobbishness. She saw Objectivism as being this incredibly serious, intellectual pursuit, while Libertarians were just a bunch of hippies that wanted the man off their backs so they could smoke dope and screw around.{/QUOTE]
Meanwhile, many of the serious thinkers of the day–including those whom Rand intimately knew–snickered at her philosophy and thought her an intellectual lightweight and poseur. (BTW, for awhile she was a big Gerald Ford supporter. Thought he was brilliant in some strange way. 'Nuff said.
True or not, Bill Buckley once claimed that she was buried in a casket that had a large dollar bill on it. Close friends said she almost worshipped money and also was prone to hysterics–borderline pathology, frankly.
Never apologize for Rand bashing. It’s fun and the old bat deserves every bit of it.
I always thought that she didn’t like them because she felt Libs to be anarchists. She really didn’t like the idea of anarchy so she disliked the Libs. I personally don’t see Libritarians that way, guess cause I am one, but I think she did.
This was uncalled for. Highly.
This at least was on opinion and I had no problems with it.
Personally I did with Rand what I do with all writers or whatever, I take what I think is valid and use it and discard the rest. I personally agreed with many of the things she said.
And I personally discarded all of it.
Yes, the supremacy of rationality and logic, why that there’s just crazy talk.
I do not know what Ayn Rand personally said about libertarians. However I did see a lecture where Leonard Peikoff bashed the libertarians, and if Peikoff has a thought in his head that doesn’t come from Rand, I’ve never heard it.
Peikoff described llibertarians as people who want freedom “without any reason.” I.e., because libertarians supposedly do not arrive at their non-coercive, non-initiation-of-force philosophy through the logic and reason that Rand’s objectivists did, they’re somehow wrong. With Peikoff, you must not only agree with Rand’s conclusions, but you must reach them the same way she did. That seems to be the basis of Peikoff’s (and, I assume, Rand’s) disdain for libertarianism.
I will refrain from further comments to avoid moving this into Great Debates.
I recall that Rand disliked libertarians because she perceived them to be universally tolerant. She despised their typical live-and-let-live attitude. Though she clearly espoused freedom without restraint or coercion, she destested their unwillingness to make moral judgments or live by her brand of moral legalism. According to Rand, libertarianism is not a philosophy, just a collection of directionless hippies. I think she even labeled them “the hippies of the right.”
MR
It is the way Rand did it.
See? It’s impossible to discuss her with it turning into a pre-school battle for crayons.
Hmm… that’s an intersting idea, never thought of it that way. Kind of a stupid way to think really. Gee someone agrees with you and you tell them they are wrong for getting to it the wrong way. Oh well let em think what they want I can still make up my own mind.
That’s funny I liked it. but it only gets that way when someone can’t discuss it like an adult.
Let’s keep flamefests out of GQ, please.