The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul

Ayn Rand was a troll, designed to cause division in the liberty movement

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Ayn Rand, her works are one of the biggest reasons there *is* a liberty movement today.

Though I have never been an Objectivist, I myself (and many, *many* others) came into the movement directly via Ayn Rand.

So if she was, as you claim, "designed" to sabotage the liberty movement, then her "designers" were complete & utter incompetents.
 
Yes, but we're not talking about art. We were talking about PHILOSOPHY, and specifically a philosophy that deals with objective facts.

Yes, we *are* talking about art - because we are talking about Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand specifically sought to convey her philosophical positions & beliefs via literature.

Art, properly understood, is a means of illustrating & concretizing A) abstract facts about the nature of reality & existence, and B) attitudes about or assessments of those putative facts.

IOW: Art is a perfectly legitimate means of transmitting philosophical thought. It is no less legitimate in this regard than "straight up" philosophy texts.

If you disagree, well ... go tell it to Aristotle. ("The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.")

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.

The fiction section is not where the philosophy books are.

No. What is "surreal" is allowing publishers & book retailers to decide for you what does & does not constitute "philosophy."

(And, per my comments above, fiction is NOT, "by definition", a "subjective work")
 
Last edited:
And if you were being objective, you would have been reading Francis Bacon and actually learning from the real philosophy section.

That is completely ridiculous.

By your "logic", the dialogues of Galileo, Berkeley, Hume, etc. should all be in the fiction section.

By your "logic", Francis Bacon had no business writing New Atlantis.

(OMG! What is this? "New Atlantis" ? Didn't Rand refer Galt's Gulch as "Atlantis" ?? :eek: Ayn Rand must have plagiarized Francis Bacon, too !!! OMG! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:)
 
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.

Where to begin, when smothered with tissues, no, a blanket, no a tsunami of heedless lies? Hmmm..
How about this: One of the most absurd of your accusations is surely that Rand was a Communist. ROFL! Please explain for us the Communist ideology to be found in this- her statement of ideology.....Thanks! :-)

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." ~Ayn Rand
 
WHERE do these people shop for groceries? Perhaps they would not be so disrespectful if that information was published WIDELY on the net
 
I doubt Ron Paul is going to lose any sleep over this. He has the entire establishment attacking him yet he goes forward. Ron Paul is an true American hero.
 
I doubt Ron Paul is going to lose any sleep over this. He has the entire establishment attacking him yet he goes forward. Ron Paul is an true American hero.
I disagree with some (a lot ?) of your posts, but on this, you are 100% correct! Every. Single. Word.
 
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.

You are dropping context. She had disagreements with factions of the liberty movement that took what was - in her opinion - the wrong approach. She admired people that would be identified with the liberatarian movement but not likely the Libertarian movement. She had problems with specific people, organizations, and specific positions. We see the same shit when elements of the campaign are discussed. BFD.

She was not a politician but a philosopher. She could burn bridges.

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.

Troll? Define! Designed by whom?

You made the "neoconservative" allegation which you declined to address. Why? How hard is it to define "neoconservative" and show us how it applies?


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.

Leonard Peikoff was her self-named intellectual heir and heir to her estate and author of the definitive book about Objectivism.

Ayn Rand said of these lectures: "Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff's course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism--that is, the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate."


My statement: "Leinord Peikoff [is a] a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan."

Your reply: "you are evading facts."

Until the facts back up your assertion (re Greenspan > Peikoff in regards the thought of Ayn Rand), you are going in the bucket. A full retraction with apology for wasting our time may suffice.
 
Last edited:
From Wikipedia’s entry for Leonard Peikoff:

Peikoff claims that Palestinian people prior to the establishment of the State of Israel consisted solely of "nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain," and that "the Arabs" today have no concept of property rights; indeed, that their "primitivist" antagonism to such rights is the root cause of Arab terrorism. He argues that Israel is a moral beacon which should not return any territory to Arabs or even negotiate with them.[citation needed] Peikoff notes that oil properties developed by western interests were confiscated by Middle Eastern regimes beginning with Iran in 1951. He advocates bringing an end to "terrorist states," especially Iran, "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States.[29]

In 2004 Peikoff endorsed John Kerry (despite thinking of Kerry as a "disgustingly bad" candidate) against George W. Bush (whom he called "apocalyptically bad"), on the basis of Bush's religiosity and his refusal to crush Islamic regimes, especially Iran, along with his "doomed" economic policies. In advance of the 2006 elections, Peikoff recommended voting only for Democrats, to forestall what he sees is a rise in influence of the religious right, adding:

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."[30]

In a 2010 podcast,[31] Peikoff explained why he supports immigration restrictions in the current context of the welfare state, and why he does not see this as a contradiction to Objectivism's general rejection of immigration restrictions.[32] Also, in a 2010 podcast, Peikoff explained that he does not support the building of a mosque near the "ground-zero" site in New York City, arguing that property rights are always contextual and that preventing the construction is a wartime necessity.[33]
[edit]

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

Supports nukes on Muslims, lies about Arab history, and (surprise surprise) he supports Israel. Somehow I’m not shocked. I wonder what his stance on the Federal Reserve is.
 
Last edited:
The point of the starting post of this thread has been lost.

Yaron Brook and the other frauds at the so-called Ayn Rand Institute do not speak for Ayn Rand. If Ayn Rand were alive today, she herself would support Ron Paul just as she supported Goldwater in the election of 1964
I disagree. She stated: "Libertarians are right wing hippies".

She was not for small government...she was for a cult of the ego.
 
You are dropping context. She had disagreements with factions of the liberty movement that took what was - in her opinion - the wrong approach. She admired people that would be identified with the liberatarian movement but not likely the Libertarian movement. She had problems with specific people, organizations, and specific positions. We see the same shit when elements of the campaign are discussed. BFD.

She was not a politician but a philosopher. She could burn bridges.



Troll? Define! Designed by whom?

You made the "neoconservative" allegation which you declined to address. Why? How hard is it to define "neoconservative" and show us how it applies?




Leonard Peikoff was her self-named intellectual heir and heir to her estate and author of the definitive book about Objectivism.




My statement: "Leinord Peikoff [is a] a much better barometer of her thought than Alan Greenspan."

Your reply: "you are evading facts."

Until the facts back up your assertion (re Greenspan > Peikoff in regards the thought of Ayn Rand), you are going in the bucket. A full retraction with apology for wasting our time may suffice.

I am not trying to be divisive, but you are incorrect if you think Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand, or Yaron Brook don't or didn't have a neocon-esque foreign policy and view of the world with regards to the Middle East. Many of their words on the Middle East, Arabs, and Muslims sound like they could be regurgitations of Mark Levine, Pamela Gellar, or Bill Kristol.

The reason that foreign policy and the national security state is so important is that, like a cancer, it metastasizes into other policies that always grow government and shrink liberties....think of the NDAA, Patriot Act, assassination of American citizens without charges, and all the money and liberties we lose from undeclared and unconstitutional wars. There is a direct connection to the views on Middle East policy espoused by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand, or Yaron Brook and big government.

Ron Paul understands this and this is why he doesn't and will never compromise on a non-interventionist foreign policy. Its also one of the reasons I respect Dr. Paul immensely and shows his integrity. Its the same reason I won't compromise on it either and could never support someone like Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand, or anyone who espoused similar foreign policy views.

In addition to nurturing big government, their abhorrent views on Arabs both Christian and Muslim, are bigoted, patently false, and have no place in the so called liberty movement.
 
Last edited:
I am not trying to be divisive, but you are incorrect if you think Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand, or Yaron Brook don't or didn't have a neocon-esque foreign policy and view of the world with regards to the Middle East. Many of their words on the Middle East, Arabs, and Muslims sound like they could be regurgitations of Mark Levine, Pamela Gellar, or Bill Kristol.

You are moving the bar. I have opposed bigoted and divisive statements such as:

Randians have always been statists and warmongers.


In addition to nurturing big government, their abhorrent views on Arabs both Christian and Muslim, are bigoted, patently false, and have no place in the so called liberty movement.

Do you expect the fans of Ayn Rand to defend Yaron Brook, the ARI, or even Leonard Peikoff (Rand was clear that it was his course on Objectivism which she endorsed)? What else do you mean by the use of the word "or". "OR: A Boolean operator that gives the value one if at least one operand (or input) has a value of one, and otherwise has a value of zero." Are ALL the views of ALL three always wrong, always bigoted, always patently false? Or must they embrace religion?

Someone trolled earlier that she was a neocon because she was a "phoney":

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

That troll has been unable to provide a definition of neoconservative.

Are you up to the task of proving your assertions? You seem as if you want to boot certain people or views from the liberty movement but you have no specifics. Arabs are welcome but not Randians? Or is it that they have to check pro-Israel feelings at the door and embrace all cultures regardless of merit?

As an atheist, I would not apologize for her views on Christians or Muslims. Perhaps Rand ought not to have had a favorite in the conflict, but that is not the same as endorsing the agenda of AIPAC.
 
You are clearly a troll….as anyone who is reading this thread can see.

You are not addressing the obvious connection between the bigoted views of Middle Eastern people that Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Peikoff espouse and the similarities in rhetoric with many infamous neoconservatives.....and how those views lead to big government.

Additionally you are wasting people’s time with frivolous and childish things such as the definition of “or” , building up straw men arguments, and putting words in mine and others mouths.

You choose a demeaning avatar….as if paulbot is supposed to a good thing, and if it’s a joke its not funny.

You sir are no longer worthy of my time
 
Last edited:
You are clearly a troll….as anyone who is reading this thread can see.

I should be more cheerful when being labeled a Zionist. I don't care about Israel and if there is any Jewish blood in my family, it's news to me:

The Randians are basically neocon Zionists who are trying to co-opt the libertarian movement, just as a group of hardcore Zionist Jews co-opted the Republican Party and turned it into the Neocon Party. Their goal is the same as it's always been: to promote US wars for Israel and a general "clash of civilizations" between the West and the Islamic world.

So a prominent atheist is at the center of these Israel and teh book of Revelations stuff?

You are not addressing the obvious connection between the bigoted views of Middle Eastern people that Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Peikoff espouse and the similarities in rhetoric with many infamous neoconservatives.....and how those views lead to big government.

You missed the obvious point that I would discuss specifically the views of Ayn Rand and not those of everyone who sat at her feet.

Regarding bigotry and rhetoric, that is about all you have and there is no firm association between Ayn Rand and the neoconservative movement.

- different players
- different policies
- she wrote about Israel once:


Ayn Rand on Israel

Israel looms large in the ARI mind. A recent Google search for “Israel” on their website listed 214 pages. [1] Israel was not so important to Ayn Rand: there is only one mention of Israel in all her written work. It occurs in “The Lessons of Vietnam,” The Ayn Rand Letter, dated August 26, 1974 but – the Letter being behind schedule – written in May 1975. The essay is reprinted in The Voice of Reason, published after her death.

At the time she wrote this essay the U.S. had just abandoned South Vietnam, which immediately fell to the North Vietnamese, who were backed by communist China. We will examine her mention of Israel in a moment, but since she will use the slippery term “isolationism” we first quote an earlier paragraph to make her reference clear:

“Observe the double-standard switch of the anti-concept of ‘isolationism.’ The same intellectual groups ... who coined that anti-concept in World War II – and used it to denounce any patriotic opponent of America’s self-immolation – the same groups who screamed that it was our duty to save the world (when the enemy was Germany or Italy or fascism) are now rabid isolationists who denounce any U.S. concern with countries fighting for freedom, when the enemy is communism and Soviet Russia.”

Thus the Leftists, for such were all these “intellectual groups,” are inconsistent. They denounce the patriotic isolationists of WW II (Ayn Rand was one) and yet praise the new isolationists of the Cold War. In her next paragraph she castigates these new isolationists, and maintains that, contrary to them, the U.S. may properly aid another country if (to add a condition she makes elsewhere in the essay) such aid really is in the interests of America.

The next paragraph laments that this new isolationism plays on the American public’s legitimate anger over Vietnam, thus making the U.S. government afraid to get involved in foreign wars “not agreeable to Soviet Russia.” Now comes the part concerning Israel:

“The first intended victim of the new isolationism will probably be Israel—if the ‘antiwar’ efforts of the new isolationists succeed. (Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help—not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific.)”

The time she wrote the above, 1975, is important, because the context of her knowledge is important. And it turns out that that knowledge was incomplete and inaccurate. The above quote, as we shall show, is not Ayn Rand’s philosophy, it is an innocent misapplication of it.

Many times Ayn Rand praised isolationism in its old-fashioned, America First, sense. For example, in her essay “The Chickens Homecoming” (reprinted by her in The New Left) she attacked

“the premises that we owe a duty to the rest of the world, that we are responsible for the welfare of any nation anywhere on earth, that isolationism is selfish, immoral and impractical in a ‘shrinking’ modern world, etc.”

Her attack is applicable not only to Europe and Vietnam but to any country.

Evidently – for we believe Ayn Rand was consistent – in 1975 she thought that foreign aid to Israel was in the interest of the U.S., that it was not an act of national self-sacrifice.

Specifically, judging from her answers to questions at talks she gave around this time, she supported Israel for two reasons. She believed that without U.S. support, Russia – which was supporting the Arabs – would control the Mediterranean and its oil. And she saw the fight between Israel and the Arabs as a fight between civilized men and savages.

Could Ayn Rand have had a blind spot for Israel and a touch of bigotry (in particular among those that would side with the USSR)? Perhaps. None of this will prove the assertions against her on this board. That is why you must drag in ARI, Greenspan, Peikoff and Brook.

Of course, the thread was supposed to be about ARI and not Ayn Rand - so sorry if I have strayed. It was never appropriate for people to besmirch her for the words of an organization three decades after her death.
 
Wow!. A beautifully reasoned, powerful post, utterly convincing in its arguments. (I think Ayn Rand herself would have admired it!)

+Rep, of course. :-)
 
That's weird. Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist ... a very strict Constitutionalist.





So are you misquoting me in your signature to make others think I that misquoted Rothbard?

That's dishonest. An honest person would include the whole quote. Rothbard said it. I just quoted him.

I'm not misquoting you at all LIAR...their both direct copy and paste quotes. You asserted CLEARLY, OVER AND OVER, that Rothbard was NOT an anarchist, that he was a minarchist. Any moron with half a brain can see that isn't true, LIAR.

The whole quote was a long ass screed that has jackshit to do with the main point; that you deny Rothbard was an anarchist. Stop trying to cover up for your ignorance. You haven't read Rothbard's books. You misrepresent him because you hate anarchism. Go F yourself, LIAR.

AND BTW, I clearly said in what you just quoted, Mr. "I have no reading comprehension", that libertarians are minarchists AND anarchists, therefore Objectivists being for larger minarchy than libertarians (especially in the war department) hate our guts. Go read Rand's quotes on the subject if you think I'm wrong.

I hate liars more than anything, even thieves. Fraud is what lying is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top