Ayn Rand - Opinion? (preferably informed?)

Started by SkepticOfMyOwnMind, September 26, 2013, 12:41:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

SGOS

Quote from: "stromboli"She was a conniving, self promoting, selfish user of people who blew through vast amounts of money and ended up on social security and medicare after lung cancer surgery, due to her heavy smoking. She was a bitch.
She was self absorbed and intolerant to the point that she would throw members of her weekly discussion group out for having an idea she didn't like.  She was an obsessed person reacting to her childhood experiences with communism by developing an economic fantasy at the opposite end of the spectrum.  

She did develop a following, as misguided people often do.  One of the groupies at her weekly meetings was Alan Greenspan, whose reaction to the banking shenanigans that resulted in millions of homes being lost at the hands of crooked bankers was, "Oh my, I thought rich bankers were honest enough to be trusted without the need for regulations."  Such beliefs might make sense in a perfect world.  Rand envisioned her own Utopia, which was intolerant of anyone else's version of Utopia.  Her economic philosophy might even work if she actually lived in a utopia.

Having said that, I did very much enjoy Atlas Shrugged, not as a piece of great literature that points the way to economic enlightenment, but as fantasy science fiction.  Instead of pitting good against evil, she pitted smart against stupid, with the smart being synonymous with honest (good) and the stupid synonymous with dishonest (evil).

As for the OP, I'm not going to go quote mining through books that I've read.  The OP can read books about Rand on his own and form his own opinions about her.  This forum is not meant to be a substitute for the Library of Congress.  We're just a bunch of atheists.

Mister Agenda

#16
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"I've been an atheist for several years now, but I used to spend a lot of my time learning about different philosophies and religions. I'm pretty settled on atheism, but I still find several atheist philosophies interesting.

I would like to know, from those who read Ayn Rand's work, what you think of her philosophy. Here are some of my questions.

I've read most of her stuff, though it's been awhile. I've become less enamored of her work in the last twenty years, but I think I can still be fair.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"*Did she find something exceptional for her time?

She put some ideas into a framework that most people weren't familiar with.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Does her work seem dated, or does it remain relevant?
Her novels are more outdated than her nonfiction.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • How much of her language suggests inherent problems with her ideas, and how much just fits with the times?
She was fond of using peculiar defintions (which philosophers are wont to do) that were very easy to take out of context. To be fair, she was clear about what she meant in her work; but if you call selfishness a virtue and altruism a sin, you're begging to be taken out of context. That's not the only problem, but I would say it's the content of her work more than the times.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • What would you say are the key points of her philosophy?
Reality is real, we perceive something that exists, consciousness is the faculty by which we do so. She makes a lot of hay from the Law of Identity. From this she derives some epistemology. She concludes that survival is a basic instinct, reason is how humans survive, so reason is the highest good and morality can be derived by reason. Choosing not to think is very bad. Freedom is necessary. Selfishness is defined as pursuing rational self-interest, so it's good. Capitalism is the best economic system. Altruism is defined as self-sacrifice with no benefit to yourself, so it's bad.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Is John Galt's speech worth reading?
You'll only know once you've read it. The book is huge, I'm sure you can wade through just the speech.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Should I read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, etc.?
If you like the speech, you'll like those.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • How similar are her opinions to those of more modern atheist authors like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris?
Not very, they're all rationalists, but Hitchens and Harris fall within mainstream economic and political views.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Do her expressed views and reasons seem exceptionally natural or fantastic? Why?
Thinking she can derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is a basic mistake. Her terms are confusing. She was unaware that altruism is an evolved trait intrinsic to human nature, or that her heroes came off as intellectual sociopaths.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • If you've watched Atlas Shrugged Parts 1 or 2, how do those compare to the book?
I saw the first one. I thought it was reasonably close.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Which of Ayn Rand's concerns turned out to be well-founded, and which turned out to be irrelevant or wrong? How and why?
We've managed to muddle along on our middle path (so far, at least) without falling into communistic dystopia.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Edit: Please post enough information to prove that you read at least some of her work.

I hope that was helpful.
Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Colanth

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Did she find something exceptional for her time?
Was "I got mine, screw you" exceptional?  Not in the least.  "MINE!" is as old as hominids.  Maybe as old as brains.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

ParaGoomba Slayer



Not a big fan of her Objectivism thing, but I like these 2 speeches.
[size=150]Circumcision? HIS body, HIS decision.[/size]

[size=150]Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins. This is very simple reasoning that is applied to everything, EXCEPT infant circumcision for some stupid fucking reason.[/size]

Hijiri Byakuren

You have to change https to http and get rid of feature extensions for those YouTube links to work.

[youtube:20zdavqm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4JWE7mp8nI[/youtube:20zdavqm]

[youtube:20zdavqm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0yUjMklVuI[/youtube:20zdavqm]
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Jason Harvestdancer

You're asking for a difficult answer, because her critics have seldom read any of her writings.  Seriously, not only have many of her critics not read her writings, many of those in turn refuse to do so.  Their criticisms are based on reading criticisms written by others who haven't read the source material either.

For a good indication of whether or not the critic has read the original source material instead of third hand criticism, look for phrases such as "a wonk for conservatives" or "I got mine, screw you" or "wanted to enslave the worker and funnel all the profits to the top 1% of the very rich" or "for limiting competition, denying equal opportunity, and not paying for your share".  If you see phrases like those, you aren't dealing with someone who studied what Rand actually wrote, but instead studied what critics have said, those critics having studied critics who studied critics who didn't read the original material.

Still, there are a few critics who actually have read the source material.  There are three separate criticisms that can be made of Rand, but strangely her critics seem unable to criticize just one of them at a time but constantly switch back and forth.  One can criticize her as a person, her as an author, or the philosophy she created.  But if you are in a discussion about the merits or cons of the philosophy you will get people piping in saying "and she can't write" or "she took Social Security".  One is a literary criticism, the other a personal criticism, neither of which have anything to do with the philosophy.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Did she find something exceptional for her time?
  • Does her work seem dated, or does it remain relevant?
  • How much of her language suggests inherent problems with her ideas, and how much just fits with the times?
  • What would you say are the key points of her philosophy?
  • Is John Galt's speech worth reading?
  • Should I read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, etc.?
  • How similar are her opinions to those of more modern atheist authors like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris?
  • Does sexism taint her philosophy much, is it salvageable, or is it not really sexist? Why?
  • Do her expressed views and reasons seem exceptionally natural or fantastic? Why?
  • If you've watched Atlas Shrugged Parts 1 or 2, how do those compare to the book?
  • Which of Ayn Rand's concerns turned out to be well-founded, and which turned out to be irrelevant or wrong? How and why?

Is it dated?  Well, one can say the same of works of literature such as "1984" or "Brave New World".  On the other hand, even with there being inaccuracies in how the author failed to predict exactly how the future turned out there are still valuable themes in the works.

I do not see sexism in her novels.  Even the third hand critics have a tough time finding it, you have to go down to the fifth hand critics.

The thing that disappointed me about the movies is that the cast changed between films.  I was curious how a novel set with railroads as the dominant technology could be adapted to the modern world.

Should you read the books?  That's up to you.  Do you want to know what is written in them?  If you do, then you probably want to read the books.

Most fans of Rand skip over the Galt speech and read it after they've read the book.  The problem with discussing the speech is that it was a very bad thing to do from a literary point of view, but the reason to read it is for the philosophical point of view.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

mykcob4

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You're asking for a difficult answer, because her critics have seldom read any of her writings.  Seriously, not only have many of her critics not read her writings, many of those in turn refuse to do so.  Their criticisms are based on reading criticisms written by others who haven't read the source material either.

For a good indication of whether or not the critic has read the original source material instead of third hand criticism, look for phrases such as "a wonk for conservatives" or "I got mine, screw you" or "wanted to enslave the worker and funnel all the profits to the top 1% of the very rich" or "for limiting competition, denying equal opportunity, and not paying for your share".  If you see phrases like those, you aren't dealing with someone who studied what Rand actually wrote, but instead studied what critics have said, those critics having studied critics who studied critics who didn't read the original material.

Still, there are a few critics who actually have read the source material.  There are three separate criticisms that can be made of Rand, but strangely her critics seem unable to criticize just one of them at a time but constantly switch back and forth.  One can criticize her as a person, her as an author, or the philosophy she created.  But if you are in a discussion about the merits or cons of the philosophy you will get people piping in saying "and she can't write" or "she took Social Security".  One is a literary criticism, the other a personal criticism, neither of which have anything to do with the philosophy.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Did she find something exceptional for her time?
  • Does her work seem dated, or does it remain relevant?
  • How much of her language suggests inherent problems with her ideas, and how much just fits with the times?
  • What would you say are the key points of her philosophy?
  • Is John Galt's speech worth reading?
  • Should I read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, etc.?
  • How similar are her opinions to those of more modern atheist authors like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris?
  • Does sexism taint her philosophy much, is it salvageable, or is it not really sexist? Why?
  • Do her expressed views and reasons seem exceptionally natural or fantastic? Why?
  • If you've watched Atlas Shrugged Parts 1 or 2, how do those compare to the book?
  • Which of Ayn Rand's concerns turned out to be well-founded, and which turned out to be irrelevant or wrong? How and why?

Is it dated?  Well, one can say the same of works of literature such as "1984" or "Brave New World".  On the other hand, even with there being inaccuracies in how the author failed to predict exactly how the future turned out there are still valuable themes in the works.

I do not see sexism in her novels.  Even the third hand critics have a tough time finding it, you have to go down to the fifth hand critics.

The thing that disappointed me about the movies is that the cast changed between films.  I was curious how a novel set with railroads as the dominant technology could be adapted to the modern world.

Should you read the books?  That's up to you.  Do you want to know what is written in them?  If you do, then you probably want to read the books.

Most fans of Rand skip over the Galt speech and read it after they've read the book.  The problem with discussing the speech is that it was a very bad thing to do from a literary point of view, but the reason to read it is for the philosophical point of view.
Bullshit! She was a conservative wonk and you know it. She thought anyone that was poor was lazy. She catagorized all minorities as the lazy poor that deserved their situation.

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: "mykcob4"Bullshit! She was a conservative wonk and you know it. She thought anyone that was poor was lazy. She catagorized all minorities as the lazy poor that deserved their situation.

See, this is the kind of writing one would expect from a person whose knowledge of Rand comes entirely from third hand sources with no actual exposure to her writing.

Do you know know what Ayn Rand said about racism?

Are you familiar with the character of Cherryl Brooks?

Are you familiar with her criticisms of conservatism?

Or did your third hand sources not cover those topics?
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Jmpty

Ayn Rand was a clever racist

bybill kramer .
 


 
 Email
 59 Comments
 .


If by clever you mean she was able to dupe racists into thinking their racism isn't racism. Ayn Rand was a racist in the same way Glenn Beck is a racist.

She knew she couldn't argue against the fundamental evil that is racism, so she attempted to cloak white supremacy in an economic philosophy and people like her have found it useful to do the same thing ever since.

She was the Glenn Beck/Karl Rove/Lee Atwater of her time, trying to use language to justify a white supremacist ideology. Her ideas are still popular with many, including her namesake Rand Paul.

For anyone confronted with an Ayn Rand sycophant, there's really no need to debate them on their adolescent beliefs. Simply direct these people to her essay "Racism" (not linked to because I could only find it available on rightwing and white supremacist websites like Stormfront).
.



Here are some excerpts from her essay:


Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism... Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.  It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history -- all these are samples of racism, the atavvistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today's so-called "newly-emerging nations."

 Obama's book "Dreams of my Father" is like Nazi Germany, according to Ayn Rand. It's a barnyard stock-farm version of collectivism. It's for animals, not men. And anyone else who cares about their family history... according to Rand, you're a Nazi too.
Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement.  There are only individual minds and individual achievements -- and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.

 The Civil Rights movement wasn't a group achievement. It was an achievement thanks to men like LBJ, a paternalistic achievement by Great Men, not the barnyard beasts... according to Ayn Rand.
Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters.

 "Poor white trash?" Totally not racist, right Ayn?
There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism.

 There's your Glenn Beck: disguising rightwing racism as an economic philosophy.
It is capitalism that gave mankind its first steps toward freedom and a rational way of life.  It is capitalism that broke through national and racial barriers, by means of free trade.
 
 Of slaves from Africa to the colonies, Ayn?
It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world.  It is the capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in the United States.


 No Ayn, it was the government that abolished the capitalist slave trade. And in many ways, not even the US government at that, although I'm sure Rand would have found the religious beliefs underpinning much of the abolition movement to be revolting and fascistic.
The persecution of Negroes in the South was and is truly disgraceful... Today, that problem is growing worse...

 Diversified schools are much worse than slavery, according to Ayn Rand.
This accumulation of contradictions, of short-sighted pragmatism, of cynical contempt for principles, of outrageous irrationality, has now reached its climax in the new demands of the Negro leaders... Racial quotas have been one of the worst evils of racist regimes.  There were racial quotas in the universities of Czarist Russia, in the population of Russia's major cities, etc.


 The totalitarianism and fascism Ayn Rand escaped from was bad, but these demands by blacks are the "climax" of it all. Blacks in the Civil Rights movement who were fighting for equality and diversity in schools... they're not just like the worst racist totalitarian regimes, they're much much worse - according to Ayn Rand. That sounds like a sensible, totally not racist basis upon which to form a political philosophy, right?
It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds -- it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors. It demands that a white laborer be refused a job because his grandfather may have practiced racial discrimination.

 OK Ayn, we've heard that one before. The poor white people are being persecuted by decent folks demanding our schools be diversified. And the Civil Rights movement will prevent whites from getting jobs they deserve. We get it. We've heard that before from the White Citizens Councils.
That absurdly evil policy is destroying the moral base of the Negroes' fight.  Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own.

 If blacks demand diversified schools, they forfeit their rights? Wow. Gee, I wonder where that kind of nonsensical hatred for blacks comes from?
A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to deal with him.  Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine -- but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law.

 Obviously Rand Paul read this essay and agrees. But actually, you're wrong Ayn. When restaurants kick blacks and Jews out of their establishments, that is an infringement of rights. And we're not dialing the clock back on that one no matter how much your namesake Rand Paul wants to.
the Negroes -- are now in the vanguard of the destruction of these rights.


 Sound the Tea Party trumpets. The blacks are leading the charge in taking away your rights... according to the Ayn Rand sycophants.
There's no reason to engage a Tea Partier or a Libertarian in a discussion as to the legitimacy of Ayn Rand's thinking.

Just point them to her hateful ignorant essay on racism and tell them to get back to you. It's just white supremacy disguised as an economic philosophy. That's all it is. It's just rightwing strategists doing what they always do, using the things they know they're guilt of (racism) to demonize their opponents - destroying language so that it's that much more difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

Ayn Rand's thinking is merely a dog whistle for racists. It's just a philosophy for people who are tired of being called racists because their beliefs are racist. It has been for decades, and it's time to stop pretending it's anything else.
???  ??

mykcob4

Quote from: "Jmpty"Ayn Rand was a clever racist

bybill kramer .
 


 
 Email
 59 Comments
 .


If by clever you mean she was able to dupe racists into thinking their racism isn't racism. Ayn Rand was a racist in the same way Glenn Beck is a racist.

She knew she couldn't argue against the fundamental evil that is racism, so she attempted to cloak white supremacy in an economic philosophy and people like her have found it useful to do the same thing ever since.

She was the Glenn Beck/Karl Rove/Lee Atwater of her time, trying to use language to justify a white supremacist ideology. Her ideas are still popular with many, including her namesake Rand Paul.

For anyone confronted with an Ayn Rand sycophant, there's really no need to debate them on their adolescent beliefs. Simply direct these people to her essay "Racism" (not linked to because I could only find it available on rightwing and white supremacist websites like Stormfront).
.



Here are some excerpts from her essay:


Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism... Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.  It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history -- all these are samples of racism, the atavvistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today's so-called "newly-emerging nations."

 Obama's book "Dreams of my Father" is like Nazi Germany, according to Ayn Rand. It's a barnyard stock-farm version of collectivism. It's for animals, not men. And anyone else who cares about their family history... according to Rand, you're a Nazi too.
Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement.  There are only individual minds and individual achievements -- and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.

 The Civil Rights movement wasn't a group achievement. It was an achievement thanks to men like LBJ, a paternalistic achievement by Great Men, not the barnyard beasts... according to Ayn Rand.
Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters.

 "Poor white trash?" Totally not racist, right Ayn?
There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism.

 There's your Glenn Beck: disguising rightwing racism as an economic philosophy.
It is capitalism that gave mankind its first steps toward freedom and a rational way of life.  It is capitalism that broke through national and racial barriers, by means of free trade.
 
 Of slaves from Africa to the colonies, Ayn?
It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world.  It is the capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in the United States.


 No Ayn, it was the government that abolished the capitalist slave trade. And in many ways, not even the US government at that, although I'm sure Rand would have found the religious beliefs underpinning much of the abolition movement to be revolting and fascistic.
The persecution of Negroes in the South was and is truly disgraceful... Today, that problem is growing worse...

 Diversified schools are much worse than slavery, according to Ayn Rand.
This accumulation of contradictions, of short-sighted pragmatism, of cynical contempt for principles, of outrageous irrationality, has now reached its climax in the new demands of the Negro leaders... Racial quotas have been one of the worst evils of racist regimes.  There were racial quotas in the universities of Czarist Russia, in the population of Russia's major cities, etc.


 The totalitarianism and fascism Ayn Rand escaped from was bad, but these demands by blacks are the "climax" of it all. Blacks in the Civil Rights movement who were fighting for equality and diversity in schools... they're not just like the worst racist totalitarian regimes, they're much much worse - according to Ayn Rand. That sounds like a sensible, totally not racist basis upon which to form a political philosophy, right?
It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds -- it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors. It demands that a white laborer be refused a job because his grandfather may have practiced racial discrimination.

 OK Ayn, we've heard that one before. The poor white people are being persecuted by decent folks demanding our schools be diversified. And the Civil Rights movement will prevent whites from getting jobs they deserve. We get it. We've heard that before from the White Citizens Councils.
That absurdly evil policy is destroying the moral base of the Negroes' fight.  Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own.

 If blacks demand diversified schools, they forfeit their rights? Wow. Gee, I wonder where that kind of nonsensical hatred for blacks comes from?
A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to deal with him.  Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine -- but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law.

 Obviously Rand Paul read this essay and agrees. But actually, you're wrong Ayn. When restaurants kick blacks and Jews out of their establishments, that is an infringement of rights. And we're not dialing the clock back on that one no matter how much your namesake Rand Paul wants to.
the Negroes -- are now in the vanguard of the destruction of these rights.


 Sound the Tea Party trumpets. The blacks are leading the charge in taking away your rights... according to the Ayn Rand sycophants.
There's no reason to engage a Tea Partier or a Libertarian in a discussion as to the legitimacy of Ayn Rand's thinking.

Just point them to her hateful ignorant essay on racism and tell them to get back to you. It's just white supremacy disguised as an economic philosophy. That's all it is. It's just rightwing strategists doing what they always do, using the things they know they're guilt of (racism) to demonize their opponents - destroying language so that it's that much more difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

Ayn Rand's thinking is merely a dog whistle for racists. It's just a philosophy for people who are tired of being called racists because their beliefs are racist. It has been for decades, and it's time to stop pretending it's anything else.
That is the best description of Ayn Rand I have ever read. Conservatives, tea partiers all take her cue to disguise their racism in a cloak of spin and propaganda. It's like the phrase "I'm not a racist, some of my friends are niggers." It's like the Bush appologist that lie in your face and promote corporate corruption.
This idea that Ayn Rand is a true libertarian is bunk. This idea that libertarians are anything but, as someone on the board spelled out "I've got mine screw you" is bunk. The whole libertarian ideology is filled with contridictions to reality. Ayn Rand was the author of those contridictions. She justifies a whole slew of corrupt corporate greed claiming it as individualism. It's NOT 3rd or second hand cirtiques, thats just spin. Ayn Rand may be the most anti-constitutional anti-American that ever put pen to paper. She's an economic classist, an economic racist. Nothing more and nothing less!

josephpalazzo

Some of the mistakes that Ayn Rand made:

(1) Equating racism with collectivism: the only evidence provided is that in both cases, people were asked to fill in forms about their ancestry.

No, racism and collectivism are two different concepts. They might have some overlapped, but so do trains and cars, yet no one mistakes one for the other.

(2) that capitalism rewards productive ability and hard work.

Not really. (a) It doesn't explain why a hard working nurse makes $30,000 and a guy knowing how to swing a bat makes $5,000,000 playing baseball. (b) It doesn't account for hardworking people losing their jobs in a downturn, or hard working entrepeneurs losing their business. (c) Also, we all have different abilities, and hard work doesn't necessarily translate that into wealth.

(3) She believed that government means interference, allowing racism/collectivism to grow.

No, not really. Without government, bullying, intimidation and ''might is right'' will proliferate.

(4) She opposed affirmative action on the basis of (1), (2) and (3).

She makes the identity that history = genetics, and therefore advocates that we forget all about history, IOW, forget about the 200 years that whites have kept blacks in slavery, and another 100 years in segregation denying their constitutional rights.

Sorry, but Ayn Rand is a basket case of logic going awry.

Solitary

I never read anything about her, and from reading the above two posts I won't.  8-)  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

LikelyToBreak

Jmpty's post pretty well validates The Whit's assertion.  "A clever racist" is the type of code which those saying they are really talking in code which infuriates me.  She said what she said, and regardless of her hypocrisy, claiming she is speaking in code is bullshit.  

Jmpty wrote in part:
QuoteFor anyone confronted with an Ayn Rand sycophant, there's really no need to debate them on their adolescent beliefs. Simply direct these people to her essay "Racism" (not linked to because I could only find it available on rightwing and white supremacist websites like Stormfront).
I had no trouble finding her essay.  

Here is her essay from the well known rightwing white supremacist website YouTube if you want to listen to it.
[youtube:lbq9ypek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeI9NfbfT8[/youtube:lbq9ypek]

If you would like to read it, it is here at: //http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/

While I don't agree with all of Ayn Rand's views, I hate how many represent those views.  And it doesn't matter if she was a rightwing racist with sexist views, what she wrote or said should stand on their own merit.  The rest are just ad hominem attacks which seeks to discredit what is said by discrediting the speaker.  

I am not against those who disagree with Ayn Rand's views in expressing their thoughts.  But, resorting to lying, race bating, and ad hominem attacks, I am against.

Back to the subject, sort of, people can and should learn from different philosophers and philosophies.  No one has ever and I doubt ever will, have all of the answers to all of the issues.  We can learn much from people with differing views, but not if we go into discussions with them having closed minds.  As atheists we often complain about the lack of valid logic arguments amongst the religious.  But, some atheists see no problem with using the same logically invalid arguments when it comes to politics.  Not only is it seen through easily by most, but just angers those who you might want to sway.  

That's the way I see it.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "Solitary"I never read anything about her, and from reading the above two posts I won't.  8-)  Solitary

You've missed nothing.

billhilly

Quote(2) that capitalism rewards productive ability and hard work.

Not really. (a) It doesn't explain why a hard working nurse makes $30,000 and a guy knowing how to swing a bat makes $5,000,000 playing baseball. (b) It doesn't account for hardworking people losing their jobs in a downturn, or hard working entrepeneurs losing their business. (c) Also, we all have different abilities, and hard work doesn't necessarily translate that into wealth.


I'm not a big Rand fan but what you've described here is awfully close to the labor theory of value.  Hard work in and of itself isn't supposed to translate into wealth according to rand.  Creating perceived value is what turns into wealth.  The guy who can hit MLB pitchers is much harder to find than a nurse so the value is in scarcity as long as people still like to watch baseball.  Gold sells for a lot more than aluminum even though aluminum is much more useful for the same reason.  

Working hard is only worth the value the work creates for the general public in a given set of circumstances.  Hardworking buggy whip makers were all put out of business too.