The only cure for the immorality of the ideas of Ayn Rand and her followers is morality, and the best if not the only workable foundation for morality is ultimately faith in God. At least as far as I can see. I’m sure Hitchens would disagree with me.

Objectivism in political theory wants to de-regulate a so called free market even further. It is naked self interest and arrogance.

Also, I dunno what to make of the article. I’m a liberal and I’ve only met a few Objectivists and only one was an asshole. I also don’t think capitalism caused our economic troubles. Bush was anything but a Randoid.

Corsello’s piece is a powerhouse. Thanks for highlighting it, Mer. For my money, it’s probably the best smackdown of Rand since Whittaker Chambers’ classic Big Sister is Watching You from way back in 1957. The two essays make for interesting reading together, partly because of drastically different styles, partly because Chambers was a conservative and partly because they bookend 42 years that saw Objectivism go from fringe phenomenon to full-blown infectious alternative culture.

To me, one of the most interesting aspects of Rand’s work is the way that those who don’t hold to its political ideology — like Henry Rollins, numerous pagan writers or some of my own friends — still have a soft spot for capitalism’s inquisitor.

For plenty of awkward, outcast intellectual types (and we’ve all been there) Rand provides an ounce of arrogance and a stick to thrash the world with. Powerful stuff for many, and I think that accounts for a lot of her appeal, even for those who don’t become Objectivists. Drive and pride are essential, after all, and Rand does tout them in spades.

So I can see where Nadya and Jessica are coming from, but I think Mer’s right about Rand relying on some extremely nasty traits to define her identity. If anything, her life and philosophy seems to carry a cautionary lesson: stripped of nuance or reflection, the quest for self-realization can lead to some pretty dark places.

Plenty of people survived trauma like that suffered by Rand’s family and managed to lift themselves up from it without becoming fanatics. Overall, I think Rand’s impact has been ruinous and in the end, I see her as someone never really able to grow past early tragedy.

It’s also worth noting that while Rand certainly put in plenty of hard work, she was hardly as completely self-made as she pretended. She came to the US and found her feet with the aid of well-established relatives in Chicago, whom she promptly ditched and never paid back, even after she had a fortune.

Anyway, I’ve rambled enough and am way late to this topic, just my two cents.

The other thing that always astonishes me is the idea that Rand could possibly have become a nationwide phenomenon, a revered novelist and philosopher, a best selling author who has been in print for over 60 years, gone from a refugee off the boat who knew no English to an English-writing author of international fame, and done it all on an internal moral philosophy of “self-hatred” and “foolishness”. If you do not see the logical contradiction here, your mind is frankly beyond the power of logic or reason to resuscitate.

Anyone who does not realize Rand’s abilities, talents, or the truths in her work should attempt to become a best-selling author who sells millions of books and stays in print for 60 years. Furthermore, try to do it when your works are rejected by publisher after publisher, being told things like “you do not understand socialism” after literally fleeing for your life from a communist country, and getting denouned by official reviewer after official reviewer in the mainstream media. Then I will start to listen to your criticisms of what an idiot Rand was and how foolish her ideas were.

It always amazes me exactly how much vitrol there is out there about a philosophy that can really be boiled down to 1) focus on the facts and 2) fight for the best life you can.

Most Objectivists I know are polite, friendly, and joyous. Yes, there are angry, bitter people that call themselves Objectivists and attempt to use the philosophy as a bludgeon. In my experience, they are usually young and have a superficial understanding of it. They see the word “selfish” and think that means you should be a jerk; when what it means is that you should be productive, protect your loved ones, protect your freedom, aspire to your best.

A philosophy that tells you to love your life shouldn’t be this controversial.

Regards,
Randal V

Then went the Pharisees unto Libertarian Jesus, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, O Great Libertarian Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18And Libertarian Jesus spatteth the dummy, and did say, Taxation is a tyranny upon the common man.

19I say unto thee that Caesar must go forth even unto Fuck, for I shall not render a single shekel unto that Onanist.

20And the Pharisees rejoiced, for they knew that Pilate would give Libertarian Jesus a bloody good crucifying, and sent forth for the legions.

21But Lo, Libertarian Jesus hadst not finished by a long shot, and did bend the ears of the Pharisees, saying, Big governorship is inherently self-interested and should be overthrown by a mass movement of individuals.

22Truly, I knowest how to spend my hard earned coin, and no quill-pushing scribe should spend it on aquaducts and such foolishness.

23And the Pharisees became annoyed, and did say, Surely the LORD smileth upon aquaducts, for they hath improved sanitation.

24And, This stuff about smashing the state doth sound good in theory, but surely it is but passing water in the wind, for it shall never work in reality. Nobody shalt go for such nonsense.

25Truly, Libertarian Jesus, thou art wasting thy time and ours.

26But Libertarian Jesus was great in wrath, and did goeth on at great length about negative liberty and natural law.

27And on.

28And on and on.

29And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the Pharisees begged Libertarian Jesus to holdeth his peace, but to no avail.

30And lo, presently the Legion came upon Libertarian Jesus, and gave him a bloody good crucifying.

31And there was much rejoicing and loud were the hosannas.

32And Libertarian Jesus looked down upon the Pharisees and said, Forgive them LORD, for they know not the principles of Minarchism

Okay, so the Bolsheviks scarred her for life; she and her family were oppressed and terrorized. Sad stuff. Then Rand’s reaction was to become a hamfisted bully herself? Not surprising, really, but is it admirable?

In many ways, Objectivism and Bolshevism seem like two sides of the same coin. Both Rand and the Soviets believed that a tiny revolutionary elite (that somehow possessed flawless, inarguable rationality) must seize power and impose a unified vision upon the great unwashed, retarded masses. Does the hypocrisy not make you a little queasy? Why be proud of someone who takes that path? (I mean, sure, the route Rand took sure beats laying down and dying with a boot mark on your forehead! Kudos. But still!)

I might have a soft spot for Rand, might feel more ‘you go, girl” towards her, if the deeply flawed premises of her fiction and philosophy hadn’t influenced world politics to the degree that they have. If she hadn’t been a friendly friggin’ witness before the House of Un-American Activities Committee. If her ideas, which hinged so heavily on the value of logic and reason, were not often presented in such a rabidly emotional, unbalanced manner. If she hadn’t been profoundly disrespectful of just about all of the philosophers who preceded her and grossly misunderstood and misrepresented some of them (see her demonizing of Kant) in her ignorance.

Elitism born of wounds, achievements fueled by insecurity or vengeance… they’re not at all remarkable to me. And I rarely find outright hateful people very interesting.

However, hatred and selfishness are very human traits, and that’s the one thing I think Rand gets right: that human morality should be grounded in humanity. The problem is, more often than not, she chose to ignore or outright deny countless less B&W facets of humanity that didn’t fit her agenda. In this respect, she (and her more slavish followers) end up ignoring reality– that very same immovable, objective reality they insist exists.

you really have to take it all at a pinch of salt, it’s only a book, it’s got a very skewed veiw of the world, but its a work of fiction so it’s allowed to. I dont think having liked the book means you’ll turn into a Dog eating Dog. really interesting essay though

“(b) took it all the way, and now spend their days in the bowels of the Cato Institute, stroking hairless lap cats and smirking sourly as they develop strategies for deregulating the law of gravity”

Haha! loved it!

But I’ll always have a soft spot for Ayn Rand, personally – just because she was a fresh-off-the-boat immigrant, this Russian Jewish girl who came to America and said “whatever, I’m having this” and built up this life and identity for herself, becoming one of the most influential forces of the past century. I know that a lot of her vision was shaped by her own self-hatred, and that the result of her teachings wasn’t exactly positive, as the GQ essay does a great job of explaining. I think that if you view her as a product of her time, what she achieved was quite remarkable. Her father, who she loved very much, was a pharmacist who spent his life building up a family business, and she watched the communists shut it down when they came to power in 1917. I think that this traumatic experience was responsible for her black-and-white view of capitalism/communism. There’s a lot that she didn’t understand or want to accept. She herself didn’t know where her personal sexual preferences ended and her “objective” philosophy began. But, for all her flaws, I still think that she was a very interesting person. You could say that I’m proud of her for going as far as she did.