I agree! You offer two pithy and very important observations:

"Me-First, America-Second crowd"
Exactly. That describes the military/industrial, rich who dont like taxes on their fabulous income to support the society and economy that allows them to be fabulously wealthy, and the faith-propaganda as a political weapon and personal money making business crowd.

" Rand, with her mindless anti-Communism (anti-communalism of any sort, really)

I agree that crossing the bridge from anti-communism to anti-communalism of any kind or any sincerity is the death blow to the philsophy to me and makes it incredibly sad, shallow but very dangerous.

I was alarmed when I read Alan Greenspan was apart of that crowd for awhile but I hear he stayed fairly quiet and on the fringes and eventually left.

I'd substitute a somewhat more neutral word like passionate or singleminded or even rage impaired for mindless. Mindless goes too far for me.

You write that "the huge budget deficits, triumphalist foreign policy and disgraceful health-care system that characterize 21st-century America can all be traced straight back to Ms. Rand’s tiresome grandiloquizing."

Disagree with Rand and her philosophy all you like, but why not do so honestly? Objectivism does not advocate budget deficits (unlike both Conservatives and Liberals); Objectivist foreign policy amounts to simple self-defense at the national level (not the wrongheaded programs of agression and appeasement we see out of both parties today); and Objectivists advocate precisely what would bring about and sustain the best of all possible health-care systems (not the mess you see right now).

There is much to disagree with in Objectivism as a philosophy - unfortunately the points you raise have as much to do with Objectivism as Halloween. The mere fact that someone claims a source as inspiration does not establish a valid causal relationship. Look to the variety of actions claimed in the name of Jesus.

"...the huge budget deficits, triumphalist foreign policy and disgraceful health-care system that characterize 21st-century America can all be traced straight back to Ms. Rand’s tiresome grandiloquizing."

You're mistaken if you think that the current administration or current political trends have anything to do with the politics or ethics of Objectivism. Objectivism is an integrated philosophical system. Simply because an element or two of the political climate shares a commonality with some of the political or economical aspects of the philosophy, and that's very debatable, you can no more call it Objectivist than you could could Marxist. You could just as easily have linked your arguments with any number of systems.

I advise your readers to do a search on Objectivism and decide for themselves whether or not your comments apply.

The comments regarding your attribution of budget deficits and other political problems to Ayn Rand are correct - your assertions lack any basis in the actual writings of Rand, who was adamantly opposed to these things.

What's worse is your ad hominem against Rand herself, who was one of the best minds the world has ever seen. Perhaps you would do well to give her nonfiction works a thorough reading to find out what Objectivism is really all about: the advocacy of reason, the defense of individual rights, and all the things that follow.

To all who may read this I offer my advice from forty years as a supporter of Ayn Rand and Objectivism: Don't believe anything you hear about Ayn Rand from anybody (and that includes me and ESPECIALLY Richard Martin) until you read enough of both her fiction (which is where too many people stop) and her non-fiction to judge for yourself. Then you can decide whether it is Ayn Rand or Richard Martin who have been "discredited".

Richard Martin you ahve discredited yourself.

I diaagree with your stupid senseless vitrolic comments about Ayn Rand. Further, your ignorance demonstrates that you know nothing about Miss Rand or her work.

I strongly suggest that you, at least, try to become a little educated. To start, I recommend that you read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, The Voice of Reason, The Romantic Manifesto; all by Ayn Rand. Then tackle Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff and his course on LOGIC, all which you sorely need.

Ayn Rand's writings are anything but mindless. She is in fact THE ONLY FIRST RATE PHILOSOPHER since Aristotle and she is a great novelist.

Conversely, The PHILOSOPHY of OBJECTIVISM as developed by Miss Rand has not been discredited at all. In fact it has discredited and thrown into the dump (where they properly belong) ALL FORMS of socialism, subjectivism, mysticism, supernaturalism, skepticism and intrinsicism.

Whoa -- "the only first-rate philosopher since Aristotle" -- so much for St. Francis, Descartes, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard!

I've read plenty of Ayn Rand, thank you very much, to last at least one lifetime. Whatever you think of her philosophy (and most serious scholars dismiss it), as a novelist she is decidedly second-rate, with paper-thin characters serving as mouthpieces, cartoon villains and windy, meandering plots.

W.S. Adams' suggestion that a philosophy should not be blamed for its alleged political offspring is a good point, though: Nietzsche has often been tagged as a proto-Nazi when in fact his actual writings suggest nothing of the sort. Modern Christianity, as W.S. Adams points out, is a case in point. (Bill McKibben had a terrific piece in the August Harper's on this very paradox.)

Certain laudable elements of Rand's writings -- individual liberty, resistance to conformity, etc -- notwithstanding, the co-option of her as a "great philosopher" certifying things like the abolishment of all social services, the "evils" of the welfare state, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few remains one of the more unfortunate developments of the last two decades.

"Here are some tips on [book] reviewing ...

"8. DO NOT review any book about Ayn Rand. Even if you rave it, her gremlins will find something to go bananas about and write you a letter: 'Dear Social Metaphysician! Examine your anti-Objectivist premises and you will see that your epistemology stinks!!!'"

--Florence King in "National Review," 3 Feb 1999, p. 64.

Reply to Florence King,

When I say Ayn Rand is a FIRST RATE PHILOSOPHER, that is precisely what I mean. To understand what she writes simply requires a proper thought process. You can get a taste of her great achievements in epistemology by reading her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. For example, on her Theory of Concept Formation, on the importance of the role Context and Hierarchy in the use of concepts. On what concepts are and why does man need them? Did you know that no philosopher has ever solved the problem of universals until Ayn Rand did?

Regardless of your reliance on the fallacy of ad populum. That they in academia (whoever they are)dismiss Objectivism is irrelevant to the fact of its rightness and integrity as the proper philosophy for man qua man.

Miss Rand never advocated the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

What she advocates is laissez-faire capitalism where an individual has the right and the opportunity to pursue his own interests. Should he becomes rich like J. J. Hill, C. Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, J. P Morgan, Henry Ford, or Bill Gates, et al, he deserves it-every-hard-won-penny, and I benefit from their genius for having developed industries that are raliroads, oil companies, banks, automibles, computers, etc.

To the contrary, the welfare state is evil as it takes wealth from the producers (the moral) and gives it to parasites (the immoral). To understand this in Context I refer you to her essays in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, especially her essays on Man's Rights and on The Nature of Government. Also read her book, The Virtue of Selfishness to grasp an understanding of Objectivist Ethics.

I stand on my evaluation of Ayn Rand as a great novelist.

On your No. 8, after the colon, you should take this as good advice, after all, proper thinking IS a volitional process and it is a shame that today it is hardly used at all.

You say you have read enough Ayn Rand for a lifetime? Florence, I think you gave up.

"Did you know that no philosopher has ever solved the problem of universals until Ayn Rand did? "

No, but I did hear that Socrates once shut out the Royals on three hits.

Reply to Richard Martin

Your answer after the word "no" is irrelevant.

Living a proper human life not a joke, but dedication to the very best we can be.

So, Law of I.D., since obviously neither of us has anything better to do on a Tuesday night, tell us: What do you do for a living? How has objectivism had an impact in your personal life? How about in the life of the society in which you live? How is objectivism, compared to, oh I don't know, Roman Catholicism or Buddhism or Nepalese Maoism, making life better, or easier, or safer for the children living in poverty in your city?

Thanks for sharing,

RM

My applogies to Florence King in that, my "reply to Florence King" was in error. My reply is to Richard Martin but last two statements should read: On your quote from Florence King, her "8, after the colon applies to both Florence King and Richard Martin, but the last statement applies only to Richard Martin which should read as: You say you have read enough Ayn Rand for a lifetime? Richard, I think you gave up.

Reply to Richard Martin,

For new philosophies to gain ground it takes time and effort of those interested.

Objectivism has been around only a very short time-less than 50 years, yet the other thought or thought-less systems that you compare it to have been around for hundreds, some a couple of thousand years. You might take note of the fact that the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is now only second in popularity to the Bible in this country. You have been warned.

Thank you Richard Martin for providing what could be considered a textbook smear-job of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. You may consider social metaphysics to be an esoteric concept, but that doesn't change the fact that simply stating "most serious scholars dismiss [objectivism]", does not discredit it. You'll recall that at one point in time most scholars dismissed the idea that the earth was round. Further, when one considers how many scholars today advocate some form of communalism, not just politically but intellectually as well, it seems very plausible that a good smear job such as yours can spread like a virus.

Ad hominem is just the first of a slew of latin logical fallacies you gleefully toss out, but I have to point out at the very least that suggesting that Rand advocated a "me-first, America second" philosophy is presenting a false dichotomy at best. While Rand did advocate living primarily for one own's interests, she recognized that self-interest cannot exist without values and she pointed to the US and all it stands for as a supreme value, one worth dying for. Of course if you mean she rejected the idea that anyone with a pulse and a material need has the moral right to demand that those needs be met, without considering the rights or interests of those who fulfill those needs, then you've hit the nail on the head.

Your retreat to the position of questioning how Objectivism has helped to lift the poor out of poverty shows just how pathetic your stand against the philosophy is. Nevermind the fact that Objectivism is still in it's infancy as far as
it's acceptance in society. The relevant point is that Rand's philosophy recognizes that a system of capitalism and individual rights is consistent with the rational nature of man. It recognizes that all classes of society are served best by recognizing what society is comprised of: individuals. Leaving individuals free to pursue their self-interest is what leads to prosperity for all. Why else would so many individuals from "communalist(?)" societies be braving shark-infested waters on innertubes to get here? Now of course we've all heard the argument that the dominance of the US economy is simply due to our superior access to resources and our military-industrial imperialism, but that dodo bird ain't gonna fly either. Many of the poorest countries in the world lack neither resources, weapons, nor the moral will to use either of the former as they see fit. Imperialism and violence are the tools of societies and individuals who
reject the morality of self-reliance and self-interest.

I have to laugh when I consider how you imagined you would get away with such a blatantly unsupported screed in the age of blogs and search-feeds (I'm sure you won't be offended to know I don't make a habit of perusing New West Politics). Are your regular readers not able to digest anything more substantial than your leftist pabulum?
Scott Hampton

Re: "with her mindless anti-Communism"

Rand's text: "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" puts forward a rational theory of concepts. The collection "Virtue of Selfishness" explains how a moral code can be derived rationally. The collection "Capitalism" explains how a political system can be based on a rational morality. Indeed, some people even say her fiction is tedious because it it has too much of the "mind".

Of course, if one means the type of "mind" that conjures up something out of nothing, and wonders whether reality does not exist (like the Kantians) or whether non-reality exists (like the Islamists and Christians) then in that sense there's no "pure mind work" in Rand's writing. It's all simply rational argument upon rational argument, based upon reality... so boring!

Richard, you say "I've read plenty of Ayn Rand, thank you very much, to last at least one lifetime. Whatever you think of her philosophy (and most serious scholars dismiss it)"

Argument from authority.



"
Certain laudable elements of Rand's writings -- individual liberty, resistance to conformity, etc -- notwithstanding, the co-option of her as a "great philosopher" certifying things like the abolishment of all social services, the "evils" of the welfare state, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few remains one of the more unfortunate developments of the last two decades. "

This is, at root, Marxist drivel.

Rand was a pro-capitalist and not a 'mindless anti-communist'. How is anti-communism mindless anyway? The commies killed many more than the National Socialist Workers Party did.

How can Rand's ideas, or those of any other capitalist writer, be responsible for budget deficits? Budget deficits are the result of gross state overspending?

And Objectivism is atheistic so blaming it for Christian neo-cons is flat out wrong.

There is nothing in Ayn Rand's philosophy that discourages Individuals from getting together in a community. In fact, she gave a prime example in Altas Shrugged, where the main characters escaped the collectivist tyranny of the government, and formed their own community, in Galts Gulch.

OK, all you Fundamentalist Objectivists, if (as Scott Hampton says, on behalf of Ayn Rand), that self-interest is what leads to proserity for all, but that we can't blame her for the budget deficits that are the result of gross state overspending, you must be off your rockers!

It is in the self-interest of people with power to concentrate money where it will do them the most good, and screw everyone else. Self-interest, right? Politicians in Wash DC are operating in prime self-interest mode when they take their pork home to voters. And they don't give up that pork willingly to balance the budget. They are voted in again and on it goes.

I really don't see how self-interest leads to prosperty for all. Self-interest is greed, plain and simple. Sorry, but no amount of solving the problems of universals can change that.

You all really need to WAKE-UP and stop waiting for the second coming. Believing Ayn Rand had it all figured out and that we can stop worrying about our brothers and sisters in poverty is just LAZY. Does it make it easier to sleep at night? I bet.

Hear this: NORWAY WAS RANKED NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD FOR QUALITY OF LIFE, BASED ON RESPONSES OF CITIZENS FROM OVER 15O COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, IINCLUDING THE U.S.

How's that for your stinkin welfare states. What possible motivation could they have for lying? They probably fear all you objectives moving over there and messing up their good quality of life.

Not that I think this will change any of your minds, but really, you all sound quite like folks I couldn't count on in a crisis. Any of you have friends that aren't objectivists...?

Didn't think so.

With due respect to those above who attempted to defend Ayn Rand, there is near zero likelihood that anything said here will have any influence on those who oppose Ayn Rand. That is why this post and my earlier one are directed toward intellectually honest people who want to know what all the fuss is about. To understand Ayn Rand and the kind of passion she evokes, pro or con, you simply must read her non-fiction as well as her novels.

Read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and see if you will ever agree that self-interest is "greed, plain and simple" or that it means "screw everyone else", as has been claimed above.

Read "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" and see if you could ever think that today's politicians are "operating in prime self-interest mode" or if you could still question how self-interest and capitalism lead to prosperity.

Read "For the New Intellectual" and see if you can still claim respect for St. Francis, Descartes, Nietzsche, or Kierkegaard, or if you will still take the suffering of the poor as the centerpiece of your morality. (The frequent references to the poor in the posts above are amazingly self-revealing admissions of the altruist premise that Ayn Rand rejects.)

Let those who disagee with Ayn Rand continue with their emotionalist rants, their personal attacks, their catalog of logical errors, their distortions of what Ayn Rand really said, etc., etc. They have no other way to oppose a rational philosophy.

But as I said in an earlier post, don't believe anything anyone tells you about Ayn Rand (and yes, that includes me). Just read Ayn Rand for yourself and decide on your own. You might find it will change your life. (For some initial guidance for the newbie, I recommend the website of the Ayn Rand Institute at http://www.aynrand.org.)

"Photo Editor, 11-02-05
OK, all you Fundamentalist Objectivists,"

Okay, fundamentalist Marxist.

"if (as Scott Hampton says, on behalf of Ayn Rand), that self-interest is what leads to proserity for all, but that we can't blame her for the budget deficits that are the result of gross state overspending, you must be off your rockers!"

Actually Marx and Keynes are the writers responsible for gross state overspending.

"It is in the self-interest of people with power to concentrate money where it will do them the most good, and screw everyone else."

Marxism.

" Self-interest, right? Politicians in Wash DC are operating in prime self-interest mode when they take their pork home to voters. And they don't give up that pork willingly to balance the budget. They are voted in again and on it goes."

You support a welfare state. It's partially your fault. No capitalist writer supports a welfare state so they are not to blame.

"I really don't see how self-interest leads to prosperty for all. Self-interest is greed, plain and simple. Sorry, but no amount of solving the problems of universals can change that."

False dichotomy. Sacrifice others or yourself but sacrifice all the same.

"Hear this: NORWAY WAS RANKED NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD FOR QUALITY OF LIFE, BASED ON RESPONSES OF CITIZENS FROM OVER 15O COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, IINCLUDING THE U.S.

How's that for your stinkin welfare states. What possible motivation could they have for lying? "

Because the people who calculated it are socialists themselves?

"Not that I think this will change any of your minds, but really, you all sound quite like folks I couldn't count on in a crisis. Any of you have friends that aren't objectivists...?"

Yes. Most of my mates have never read Ayn Rand.

No more whack-a-mole. Byeee.

Well said, Phillip.

The few arguments among the rhetoric here are neither sound nor original. Rand foresaw and explained the flaws behind each in her writing.

Those of you attempting to muster opposition against Rand should really read her works first. I mean *really* read them. Don't just say you have in attempt to appear credible. Trust me, it shows.

I am reminded of a quote by Abby Van Buren (often attributed to Mark Twain). From memory: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."

Neoconservatism is far more tolerant of big government than other varieties of conservatism. Ayn Rand has absolutely nothing to do with it. Not all right wing ideas are neoconservative.

Heh, the guys over at Reason magazine's 'Hit & Run' blog are having a good laugh over this silly little screed.

One thing that nobody mentioned was that Ayn Rand didn't believe in the initiation of force by one person or group against another. (Yes force in self-defense is allowed.) That's kind of the Golden Rule. "Communalism" would be totally acceptable, as long as all the members of the commune, whether that be one house, a town, or a whole country, were there voluntarily. (Yeah, babies would have a problem. How 'bout as long as no one was prohibited from leaving?) Anyway, in all forms of socialism (or communism) the initiation of force is taken for granted. It is assumed that someone or some group of people has the right to initiate force on all the others to advance whatever agenda it has chosen. (Actually, conservatives are no different in that respect. That they are allowed to force people to abide by their idea of what's right is a common theme amongst those who seek to be "leaders.") But just because socialists want everyone to share with everyone else, and that's a very nice picture of the world, doesn't give them the right to hold a gun to everyone's head and demand that they share, even if the outcome of such coerced "sharing" is a high quality of life. (Just because my diet is proven to be healthier than yours, doesn't give me any right to force you or anyone else to eat it, even if I could prove that it would increase your lifespan by 50 years and make you beautiful and rich at the same time.) I have a feeling that the survey that ranked Norway #1 for quality of life included questions that would be answered favorably by citizens of socialist countries, and was probably distributed to and answered by people likely to enjoy the benfits of a socialist system -- like "free" health care --but I don't know for sure. Ayn Rand's beef with communism wasn't what it promised, but that it couldn't be achieved without the use of massive force. And even with the use of massive force, it has never come close to accomplishing anything like the abundance and prosperity it claims.

"I just wish they’d come up with something more original."

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about this rant.

"...'objectivism': the huge budget deficits, triumphalist foreign policy and disgraceful health-care system that characterize 21st-century America can all be traced straight back to Ms. Rand’s tiresome grandiloquizing."

But of course Richard is much too busy to actually do said tracing back...that sort of thing requires time and scholarship, whereas smears, insinuation, and insults are so much easier to bang out.

For those of you who seem to find this article without merit, try looking at it another way: it could be the basis for a fun drinking game! Every time you spot a logical fallacy, factual mistatement, disregard or insensibility to context, or simple misunderstanding by the author of the arguments he is dismissing out of hand, take a drink. Have the medics on hand.

"Not that I think this will change any of your minds, but really, you all sound quite like folks I couldn't count on in a crisis. Any of you have friends that aren't objectivists...?"

Setting aside the massive non sequitur between the first and second sentance of this statement, why should I give a fuck whether you feel you could count on me in a crisis? Why, in your opinion, do your feelings regarding my crisis readiness, specifically my readiness to help YOU in the event of a crisis, impact on whether Ayn Rand is responsible for Neoconservatism at all? Does this make sense, somehow, in the tortured workings of a socialist's brain? Perhaps my failure to understand is due to the fact that I'm greedy and "off my rocker".

BTW-

I suppose I should clarify that the first post made by "Nate" defending Rand was made by a different person than the post by "Nate" (that is to say, me) which merely attacked the intellectual rigor of this article. Not that I disagree overmuch with the other Nate, but I would hate to be mistaken for a person who fails to separate each point into its own paragraph, or someone who would stoop to speculatively reply to a point made in all capital letters about NORWEGIANS BEING HAPPIER THAN AMERICANS that included no source for the information, no proof of its truth, no reason to believe that it has any factual basis, and certainly no reason to suspect that even if true, socialism is the only plausible reason why Norwegians are happier than others.

I think you are being a little hard on the old girl. She thought. That is without dispute. You may object to her conclusions but you have to concede that she was a thinker and probably a great one at that. Now I could see your connecting neo-cons to objectivism if you read the absolute ravings of Leonard Peikoff, the "intellectual heir" she apparently picked for his ability to be a toady. There are many many more disciples of Any Rand that are vehemently against this insane war. I started reading all her stuff when I was fourteen. Without question, the greatest contribution she made to my thinking was the conviction that there is no God. After that, the very idea that one should be interested in ideas and philosophy was a great thing, that ideas have consequences. And her idea that morality is not something a Catholic priest uses to make you guilty but a guide to behavior that you need even more on a desert island then in New York City. She was right about Capitalism and all the lefties were wrong. Oh sure, she was a bit tendentious with her insistence that you have to like Strauss and tap-dancing to be a worthy friend but narcissism is a common conceit of the thinking person. Ask any liberal.

Let me add my voice to the growing chorus of Objectivists and Objectivist-sympathizers thanking Richard Martin for writing this missive. Others have offered their gratitude for your having provided a textbook example of an anti-Rand smear job, or creating an excellent source for a drinking game.

I would like to thank you for providing the online Objectivist community with an opportunity to showcase its essential decency and rationality. Even in the face of insults like "sad," "shallow," "dangerous," "fundamentalists," and "off our rockers," we are the ones inviting New West's readers to check out Rand and decide for themselves. We are the ones demolishing one logical dead-end and invalid comparison after another.

When I first saw this post of Martin's, I worried that it might attract attention from some of the more, shall we say, "overenthusiastic" adherents of Objectivism (we in the movement sometimes call them "Randroids"). Instead, I have been pleasantly surprised by the tone and content of these replies, and found them to be of much higher quality than one could expect from almost any other online community (Daily Kos, anyone?). It makes me proud to be part of the Objectivist movement. So, again, I offer my thanks.

Rand says, about altruism, that it substitutes the question: 'Who shall be the beneficiary of values?' for the question: 'What are values and why does man need them?'

That is a good point. It got me to really think about ethics. Reading "The virtue of selfishness" made me goal directed - I played more guitar, earned a math degree, became a math prof, etc. I realized the value of rational egoism -- a beautiful way to live. I have never set out to harm another. In fact, though it was not my prime intent, many benefited from my teaching.

Adam Smith understood that in a free market, we derive enormous benefit from those who pursue their own interests through productive activity.
Unfettered by governemental regulation, capitalists are free to bring their innovations to the market place. While the USA has deviated somewhat from true capitalism, the results of freedom made us the envy of the world.

I recommend Ayn Rand's works to anyone whyo wants to bring out excellence in the noble pursuit of happiness.

Rather: The Corrupted Philosophy That Ate Baghdad.

The Neocons misrepresent Ayn Rand. There’s a website devoted to exposing these liars, “ARI Watch” at
http://ariwatch.com

Its always amazing when those opponents who have never read or understood Ayn Rand's objectivism...then criticize Rand for the very same things they value or promote in themselves.

On one hand the Left hates Ayn Rand, but then states that you must be unselfish and "live for the state" who then treats individuals like public toilets. Oh yes, according to the Left you are not to live for yourself, you are to live for others. How does that work? Am I suppose to take a poll of my neighbors and ask them how I am suppose to think, live my life, where I am to work, what clothes to buy, how to feed or educate myself and my children? Why "yes" according to the Left...What total crap.

The Left says as a "human being"...you have no rights to your own property, your own money, your own thoughts, your own freedom to speak or move about...because you might offend someone. Just who has such rights is determined by the "state" who knows better than you do how to run your own life.

What are the alternatives to Ayn Rand's philosophies? Those on the left never say, except to state some very weird "feelings" usually in the context of "smears and ad hominum" attacks...about how much they hate "Rand"... Such negative comments really aren't good enough, now are they?

The Left then worships any dictator who comes down the pike as "liberators" and ignore such dictators and movements who threaten the United States and our future. I suspect that most of the Ayn Rand haters are a bunch of pot-smoking hippies who are so brain damaged they cannot figure out reality, furthermore, they don't want to be bothered with the reality of the world.