The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Objectivism is the doctrine of the lazy individualist pseudo-intellectual who can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world.

Indeed. Having someone tell me I should go to the fictional section of the bookstore to learn the philosophy of objectivism, and fiction is by definition a subjective work - is surreal.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Rand herself was quite anti-arab, and the Objectivist foreign policy was virtually the same as the neocons', as I understand it.

Follow the war money.

The first line of her book Atlas Shrugged, used throughout, is stolen from The Driver - where it is who is Henry M Galt. They're both about trains, but are as different as night and day - The Driver is, fyi, a happier and better book. The title is from what drives human cooperation, something you won't find in Atlas Shrugged, which seems to want to tear it down. There is even a character in the book whose description and actions seem to be the exact persona that Ayn Rand carried on later - her acting model I suppose.

At the point that a book that purports to be teaching ethics and how men should deal with each, plagerizes from another book, you should put it down as worthless. In this case, that's the first line of Atlas Shrugged.

There is enough other stuff like this in Atlas Shrugged for me to know it was intentional. If you like nasty mind games and jokes that 15 year olds won't get - who get "altruistically" sent this book to their high schools by the Ayn Rand Institute, - 400,000 free copies a year, then this is the book for you. For others, you have to wonder why a classic needs to be propped up that way at all.

 

[Tamasaburo]

Indeed. Having someone tell me I should go to the fictional section of the bookstore to learn the philosophy of objectivism, and fiction is by definition a subjective work - is surreal.

It is possible to lie with facts and to create a fiction to tell the truth.

If the Ayn Rand Institute is anti-Paul then that is, indeed, lame, but Ayn Rand herself was a great ally of ours.

Sure, she wasn't right about everything and she had an unfortunate tendency to encourage a cult of personality and to oversimplify her opposition, but I'd still stay she was pretty damn brilliant, considering she grew up and was educated behind the Iron Curtain and that English was her second language.

She was a friend of von Mises, and Ron and Rand are both fans of her work, btw.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It is possible to lie with facts and to create a fiction to tell the truth.

In fact, that is (or should) be the primary purpose of literature (and of all true art).

 

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Ayn rand and her followers have always tended to be assholes, even though she had a lot of stuff right.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a neoconservative since she is a phony.

Can you define "neoconservative" and explain how it applies to Ayn Rand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Keep in mind Leinord Peikoff - a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan - thought people should vote Clinton over GHW Bush in 1992 and he did the same with Kerry over W Bush:

He contends that Kerry - a mixed economy/semi-socialist - would be innocuous in the current climate. On the other hand, Bush - a Christian fundamentalist - is the leader of anti-reason, irrationality, and statist policies.

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/ar/t324.htm

 

[nbruno322]

Can you define "neoconservative" and explain how it applies to Ayn Rand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Keep in mind Leinord Peikoff - a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan - thought people should vote Clinton over GHW Bush in 1992 and he did the same with Kerry over W Bush:

She was not part of the original neocon crowd obviously, though they did share a similar view towards foreign policy.

 

[NiceGoing]

Objectivism is the doctrine of the lazy individualist pseudo-intellectual who can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world.

The Ayn Rand Institute is a spurious representative of Ayn Rand's best qualities, her principles and her brilliance. Too bad there is no way to **thoroughly** discredit them short of Ms. Rand herself coming back from heaven to do so.

 

[The Free Hornet]

She was not part of the original neocon crowd obviously, though they did share a similar view towards foreign policy.

In the early 1970s, Socialist Michael Harrington was one of the first to use "neoconservative" in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" – who had moved significantly to the right.[citation needed] These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Ayn Rand opposed the Vietnam war:

These included supporting abortion rights,[68] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"),[69] supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 as "civilized men fighting savages",[70] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[71] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

I don't think it is fair to say her foreign policy views (not philosophy but views on specifics) was similar to the neoconservatives. It is common for people to have overlapping and differing views on this that don't always align with their domestic political opinions.

1) her clear opposition to Vietnam and the draft
2) her support of Israel (1973 war) lacks evidence it would match the unconditional nature of the neocons today
3) no evidence she would support our Middle East efforts and the trillions it has cost us or the billions of dollars in aid to Arab countries when she was - presumably - so anti-Arab

She had near zero in common with neocons domestically and I think it would be a stretch to say even half her foreign policy was or would be in common with them today. Also, she lived through the Russian Revolution so some alignment with cold warriors is to be expected.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Looks like the consensus is pretty much a big "thumbs down" for the ARI. Can't say I've ever seen or heard anything from them that would lead me to disagree with that assessment.

How about the Atlas Society? I've never really followed them. What's the word? Any assessments or opinions?

 

[MarkoH]

The Atlas Society differs from the Ayn Rand Institute only in the intensity and quantity of its output, otherwise they're about the same.

Mark
ARIwatch.com / ARI vs RonPaul

 

[Mini-Me]

This Yaron character may be a total scumbag, and Ayn Rand may have been hypocritical regarding war and collectivism, but I think it's a mistake to follow in their footsteps and spew bile at Objectivists in return. Despite Ayn Rand's comments about war, Muslims, and libertarianism (the latter of which came mostly from an emotional protectiveness of the sanctity of her own doctrine...libertarians were too close for comfort), most Objectivists are strong allies of libertarianism and peace and strong supporters of Ron Paul...hardly neocons. Crap on Yaron all you like, because he deserves it, but making vicious attacks on Objectivism itself is only going to alienate allies. For all we know, that could be what Yaron WANTS, or even what he was put in charge of the ARI to do.

There have been at least two full-fledged Objectivists on this board who I greatly respect (AceNZ and lowpreferenceguy), and I would hate to see people like them get discouraged from the rest of us labelling them "neocons" and implicitly saying they're not good enough.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

That quote about the Arab-Israeli War is bad.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

If the Ayn Rand Institute is anti-Paul then that is, indeed, lame, but Ayn Rand herself was a great ally of ours.

You apparently don't know much about Ayn Rand. She hated Libertarians. and Alan Greenspan is MOST DEFINITELY NOT OUR ALLY, and was a co-writer with her.

Why Did Ayn Rand hate libertarians so much
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12905.aspx
Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

"AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program. " - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians"

Ayn Rand was a troll, designed to cause division in the liberty movement, and it worked for awhile. That's why you find outright plagerism mixed in with complete idiocy and baiting.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

In fact, that is (or should) be the primary purpose of literature (and of all true art).

Yes, but we're not talking about art. We were talking about PHILOSOPHY, and specifically a philosophy that deals with objective facts.

The fiction section is not where the philosophy books are. And if you were being objective, you would have been reading Francis Bacon and actually learning from the real philosophy section.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Keep in mind Leinord Peikoff - a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan - :

That is based, on what, your subjective opinion?

Alan Greenspan wrote essays that are part of her books and newsletters. She attended his swearing in ceremony.

As Ayn Rand might say - you are evading facts.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

She was not part of the original neocon crowd obviously, though they did share a similar view towards foreign policy.

If you view them as separate movements. For those of us that see it as part of a greater zionist movement, it's hard to miss. Her racism extended beyond being against Arabs and bigotry against Christianity, her entire inner circle is all jewish. A little hard to accomplish if you are choosing friends based on intellect instead of genes.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The Ayn Rand Institute is a spurious representative of Ayn Rand's best qualities, her principles and her brilliance. Too bad there is no way to **thoroughly** discredit them short of Ms. Rand herself coming back from heaven to do so.

What principles? She plagerized. Her original first edition Atlas Shrugged is dedicate to her husband and the man she was cheating with, she went back and changed it and many of her other works to get rid of facts like that (for instance, her love of Nietzsche). She caused her followers to sign loyality oaths. It goes on and on.

So while we were discussing the lack of merits in plagerizing the first line in a book purported to be about ethics, if you want to talk about her principles - well, she had none. Neither did Alan Greenspan. They are two peas in the same pod.

So while I like some of the values both of them claimed to represent, I detest the fact that they were phonies.

As Francisco says in Atlas Shrugged - to paraphrase, welcome to a farce. Not a very amusing one if you are actually objective, enjoy being paid for work (instead of having it plagerized), like honest money (instead of receiving it printed like from Alan Greenspan), etc.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Also, she lived through the Russian Revolution so some alignment with cold warriors is to be expected.

The truth is she was part of the communist party, went to a university you could only go to if you were a communist, and worked for the Soviets for awhile doing research about Hollywood in preparation for the communist infilitration of it. Then she went to Hollywood, partly supported by her mother, who was a local communist leader.

She may have lived through the communist revolution, but she lived through it as a communist. She can claim she changed from being a communist if she wishes to do so, but the claim about 'suffering' isn't true in light of the above.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

This Yaron character may be a total scumbag, and Ayn Rand may have been hypocritical regarding war and collectivism,

She called her inner circle the collective. At one point, she was getting them to sign loyality oaths.

Couldn't it just be intentional and not accidentally hypocritical? That it was what she was trying to do? I mean, there is just too much of it for anyone that objectively reads the facts instead of self serving blurbs on the back of some of her books. I don't think Ayn Rand was an idiot, I think she had different goals.

Mozart was A Red - a parody of Rand about this very topic:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html