Ayn Rand Was NOT a Libertarian

Who cares? I'm not in this to sell libertarianism. I want my country back.

This. We have so far to go before we even need to argue (and divide) over how limited (or absent) government should be... It's good enough for me that more and more Americans are realizing that the federal government is out of control, and that a number of it's functions can be better left to the states, locales and private enterprise.

We just have so far to go in changing minds and those in power before we let our disagreements over what's purely theoretical at this point take hold.
 

That's actually true (anarchists are collectivists). Anarchists are against private property which means they are against capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists but they don't really answer how property is protected without a government.
 
That's actually true (anarchists are collectivists). Anarchists are against private property which means they are against capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists but they don't really answer how property is protected without a government.
/facepalm ~sigh~ You have much to learn.
 
That's actually true (anarchists are collectivists). Anarchists are against private property which means they are against capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists but they don't really answer how property is protected without a government.

Yes, we do answer how. You just don't agree with our answer.

The fact that you don't agree is fine - but your disagreement with us on that point does NOT disqualify us from being anarchists, and we are NOT collectivists.
 
I think the problems with Ayn Rand go further than her political positions. Some people here embrace Ayn Rand because she has similar opinions on the issues, but if you really delve into it, it is a dangerous and sick philosophy imo. Also the literature is poor but that's just my opinion.

If you want to form a solid understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, the best philosopher is probably David Hume. To make you skeptical of all philosophy and also just to have a fun time reading something brilliant, Nietzsche is the best imo.

A lot of what Ayn Rand has written and believed in is just very juvenile imo, and I think most people who have studied philosophy would notice enormous flaws with her ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
 
Yes, we do answer how. You just don't agree with our answer.

The fact that you don't agree is fine - but your disagreement with us on that point does NOT disqualify us from being anarchists, and we are NOT collectivists.

So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition? Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?
 
So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition? Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?

Difference in having rules and having a ruler
 
I'm not. One of the defining characteristics of Randroids is that they never, ever call Rand on *anything*. To them, she is the Final Aribiter of All That Is Right and True.

Anyone who diverges from or disagrees with her must necessarily be a "hippie" or "socialist" or "anarchist" or "collectivist" or - worst of all - a "Kantian."

This is, after all, the woman who corrected and pefected Aristotle.
what's wrong with immanuel kant?
that guy was brilliant. of course he wasn't perfect. but he was a genius.
not one of those 3rd class internet philosophers of today or ayn rand. he was an extraordinarily smart man.
 
So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition? Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?

Where do you get the "no government at all" part?
 
Difference in having rules and having a ruler

Yes the difference is that the ruler makes the rules.

The problem with a ruler is that he makes oppressive rules, not that he enforces them. But it is for the protection of our freedom that we need an objective instrument (government) to enforce the correct rules (ie ensuring that people meet the obligations they consent to, particularly to their children). How do we ensure that parents feed their children, or that murderers are put in prison, or that a suspect is tried and judged fairly? I would certainly not trust a corporation motivated by profit to perform these functions, that would turn into a greater form of authoritarianism than we have now imo.
 
Rand:"But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism"

meanwhile this is Galt's Gulch laws and customs from her own writing...

John Galt described the Gulch to Dagny Taggart as a place of rest. The Gulch had no police force or sheriff, because it had no crime. The closest thing it had to an executive authority was a three-man Committee of Safety, consisting of John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld. Indeed it was not a state of any kind, but a strictly voluntary association of homesteaders. Judge Narragansett's judicial activities were probably limited to the occasional Request for Judicial Intervention to ratify arbitration agreements. The judge might also have reopened his law practice to assist his neighbors with the drawing-up of contracts.

However, the Gulch had several unwritten customs which arose, as Galt also explained, as a reaction to the things that the residents sought to rest from. No one ever remained in the Gulch at another person's expense, nor asked nor granted any unremunerated favors. Every resident was expected to pay his rent to Midas Mulligan, or else pay room and board to the leaseholder of any house in which he stayed. Similarly, no one ever "borrowed" something belonging to another; instead one rented it and was expected to negotiate a rent with the owner. (And if one discovered that he was renting the same article often enough to make it a significant expense, then he might ask Midas Mulligan for a loan, if necessary, and buy the article.)
The economy of Galt's Gulch began simply and grew more complex as the community grew more populous. At first it was, of necessity, agricultural. Francisco d'Anconia worked a mine in the Red Mountain Pass in anticipation of a larger economy to come. But aside from him, Midas Mulligan alone lived full-time in the Gulch at first. He said that he "stocked this place to be self-supporting." Specifically, he built a house, cleared some land, grew wheat, and intended to raise cattle.
 
So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition?

Given that I am an anarcho-capitalist, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say .... yes?

Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?

Because that's what Bastiat said. What does my being an anarchist have to do with it? :confused:
 
I think the problems with Ayn Rand go further than her political positions. Some people here embrace Ayn Rand because she has similar opinions on the issues, but if you really delve into it, it is a dangerous and sick philosophy imo. Also the literature is poor but that's just my opinion.

If you want to form a solid understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, the best philosopher is probably David Hume. To make you skeptical of all philosophy and also just to have a fun time reading something brilliant, Nietzsche is the best imo.

A lot of what Ayn Rand has written and believed in is just very juvenile imo, and I think most people who have studied philosophy would notice enormous flaws with her ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

This. Plus, she was talking about a Libertarian Party in its infancy. What she said about anarcho-capitalists isn't completely untrue. It takes some very strong rose-colored glasses to say their philosophy has tradtionally (where it has had a chance, like frontier America a hundred fifty years ago or Somalia today) been a boon to widows and children keeping their assets. In addition, while it's true that the Federal government has been growing almost since the Constitution was ratified, it has been more exponential lately. Remember that not only did DHS not yet exist in Ayn Rand's time, but neither did ED (the Department of Education). Let's face it; Ayn Rand was no Huxley or Orwell. She could see the problem, but she was prone to underestimate the enemy. Her fictional parasites were seldom capable of reeducating the people who got things done; reality is just a little different.

Libertarians have had, what, forty years since Rand's death to better define 'libertarian'? And an ever growing and ever more overbearing federal government has changed the entire climate. In her time, the most serious libertarian saw things going the wrong way in Washington and wanted to nip it in the bud. No one took them seriously, and they knew why--the problem they were organizing to defeat was not hardly a major problem--yet. Easy to label someone looking that far ahead as 'hippie-like'. That's why anarcho-capitalism is taken seriously by so few. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If the federal government would only hold on loosely, as it used to do, we wouldn't have to force it to let go. And we wouldn't have to give up those few but important advantages that a minimal federal government does provide.

Yes, WmShrugged, it's amusing that she harps on ancaps when her Galt's Gulch was possibly the model for it. We won't mention that Huxley's little island for misfits in A Brave New World might have been the model for her gulch. I think she considered ancaps childish because they don't seem to notice that her Galt's Gulch might be like an anarchy, but you only get there by invitation.

If it is truly an anarchy, How does one gain authority to send out the invitations?
 
Last edited:
Put some more thought into it. Society can determine their own rules without a ruler.

And when it puts in an authority to enforce those rules, that is government. And that society becomes a Republic, as Kant says.

Anarchy may have rules but without force, those rules are an empty recommendation.
 
Well said. This woman was an enemy of liberty, and her modern-day followers are even worse than neocons. Anyone who triumphs her and her warped philosophy is doing a tremendous disservice to the freedom movement.
 
what's wrong with immanuel kant?

I didn't say anything was wrong with him. Ayn Rand certainly did, though. That was my point.

A Kantian was one of the worst things you could possibly be, according to Rand.

Speaking for myself, my biggest problem with Kant is the same one H. L. Mencken had:

H. L. Mencken said:
Kant was probably the worst writer ever heard of on earth before Karl Marx. Some of his ideas were really quite simple, but he always managed to make them seem unintelligible. I hope he is in Hell.
 
Given that I am an anarcho-capitalist, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say .... yes?



Because that's what Bastiat said. What does my being an anarchist have to do with it? :confused:

If you are confused why I am asking an anarchist about his signature which seems to endorse the notion of "Law", then idk what to tell you. That just seems contradictory to me. Who enforces the Law in anarchism?

And second, my first question implied the request for some kind of explanation on your part.
 
I didn't say anything was wrong with him. Ayn Rand certainly did, though. That was my point.

A Kantian was one of the worst things you could possibly be, according to Rand.

Speaking for myself, my biggest problem with Kant is the same one H. L. Mencken had:
he wishes him to hell because he thought his language wasn't simple/simplistic enough?
wow. my respect for this man.
 
Back
Top