How Rand "destroyed" herself by her own ideology

[Havet]

There's a new book on Ayn Rand called Goddess of the Market (http://mises.org/store/Goddess-of-the-Market-Ayn-Rand-and-the-American-Right-P632.aspx?utm_source=Mises_Daily&utm_medium=Embedded_Link&utm_campaign=Item_in_Daily), by Jennifer Burns. The author isn't quite zeroed in on Intellectual property as such, but she provides enough information to document the fact that for Rand the issue of her intellectual property became increasingly important throughout her life. She documents how Rand's royalties from her work Night of January 16th gave her the first taste of financial independence, and how she later came to believe that she had not received enough. With each successive negotiation for book royalties and film rights, her terms became ever higher and ever more strict.

Rand had perfectly sound instincts (a person should charge as much as he or she can for first run) but Rand's rationale was rooted in this modern notion of intellectual property, a theory, shared by nearly all her contemporaries, on which she was never once challenged. In fact, to a great extent, her philosophy exalted the role and rights of the creator more than any, probably, in the history of ideas. This is a great contribution, but she took the notion too far — for Rand, intellectual rights trumped real rights.

This comes through not only in her writings (The Fountainhead can be given a property-rights spin but ultimately it is about intellectual rights) but also in her personal relationships. Here, property in her ideas became a source of conflict with friends such as Isabel Paterson, with whom Rand was friends for many years. Tensions entered into the friendship when Rand accused Paterson of taking her ideas in the writing of God of the Machine.http://mises.org/images/icons/pdf.png (http://mises.org/books/godofmachine.pdf) Paterson responded that Rand's contribution to the ideas in this book was minimal. They wrote back and forth and argued over specific instances of who said what to whom. They sorted through events in their associations, attempting to reconstruct them and divvy the ideas.

In truth, what had happened to Rand and Paterson is called a "conversation." One person says something, and another elaborates, which prompts new thoughts, new directions, new comments — a consensus — which then gets interrupted by new thoughts, points of departure, new elaborations, a new consensus, and so on. And if you know how Rand was, staying up all night in these detailed discussions of theory, you know that it would be simply impossible to sort out who owned what.

You can try this yourself with a friend. Talk for 15 minutes and then attempt to draw an ownership map of ideas. See if you can come to a consensus. Then see what the attempt does to your friendship.

Reading through the history of Rand's relationships with people, we find that this dynamic was pervasive — again, I'm not saying this as accusation but merely observing that it as an extension of her theory concerning the ownership of ideas.

This is particularly a problem for a theory of life that exalts independent thinking and creativity. What if the idea that one should be independent and creative itself actually came from someone else? One must constantly acknowledge one's debts. And, moreover, one should be cautious about remixing the ideas, lest the property right in the idea of being creative be stained and marred.

Marrying the idea of intellectual property to the notion of being independent generates extreme dependence and mandatory intellectual compliance.

The famed role of Nathaniel Brandon in the Rand circle was to be not only a teacher of her theories but also an enforcer of Rand's intellectual property rights, which involved excluding people as much as it did including people. He was caught on the horns of a dilemma in many ways. On the one hand, he was seeking followers for Rand's ideas. On the other hand, he wanted to protect her ideas from being stolen (he probably wanted to maintain his own monopolistic possession of them).

What kind of person, then, are you willing to tolerate as part of the inner circle? It would have to be a person who would repeat the ideas of Rand exactly, without alteration, and constantly cite Rand for her innovation — and assert her right to the idea. Taken far enough, one can imagine the result: a drone army of people who footnoted nearly every phrase coming out of their mouths.

It was in the pursuit of intellectual property that Nathaniel intervened in Objectivist clubs to prevent them from using the word Objectivist, to prevent them from using quotes from John Galt, to prevent them even from advertising lectures on the topic by students of her ideas. As Burns demonstrates — but without clarity of causal explanation — the movement for Rand's ideas only really took off after Nathaniel Brandon had been cast out of the inner circle. The monopoly on her ideas was no longer possible to maintain. They were set free (not fully open source, but at least far less restricted), and thereby flourished.

Rand was not entirely happy about this transition. Her impression was not entirely invalid that people were "robbing" her of her thoughts: Rand was having a huge influence. Like the professors discussed above, however, she turned away from an open-source model and into IP enforcement. Of the Libertarian Party, for example, she wrote, "it's a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas." But this raises the question, Would it have been better had the libertarians not been influenced by Rand? From her perspective, yes: it is even worse when ideas are stolen and then mixed with ideas with which she disagreed.

The rest of the story played out as we might expect. She ended up feeling robbed and looted by everyone who was influenced by her. My own reading of her biography is that her belief in the property of her ideas led to her experiencing unnecessary grief. After all, it didn't have to be this way.

[Dimentio]

My impression about Rand was that during the later years of her life, she turned more and more deluded, surrounding herself with sycophants and creating a de-facto cult of personality around herself. She doesn't strike me as too agreeable a person during that phase.

[Skooma Addict]

Rand did give a pretty good argument in favor of ethical egoism. But that was really the extent of her contributions to anything in my opinion.

[Demogorgon]

My impression about Rand was that during the later years of her life, she turned more and more deluded, surrounding herself with sycophants and creating a de-facto cult of personality around herself. She doesn't strike me as too agreeable a person during that phase.I get the impression based on what I have read of her that she was suffering from depression by this point and was seeking a means of alleviating it and thought sycophants were it. A common mistake unfortunately.

She got incredibly jealous certianly though when she saw anyone else holding ideas similar to her own, she had to be the one true prophet of truth and noone else could take her throne. Which is ironic given how much she pilfered from everyone else. There can't be one original word in her "philosophy".

[Revy]

Far from the personality cult of the Stalinist era, her idea of communism was a society where the idea of the self is abolished, and people are taught to think with a hive mind. That's what she promoted as the dystopian vision of a post-capitalist society. These arguments that communism abolishes individuality are so old they are addressed in The Communist Manifesto itself.

So while the "democracies" were promoting the idea that communism represented dictatorship and oppression of the people, Ayn Rand argued the opposite. That communism is the dissolution of the self into the collective mass. That's what she really taught her followers and readers to fear.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Wow, sure sounds like Rand was a real nutter.

Who knew? :rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

This is an edited version of something I wrote about Rand and originally posted at epinions.com in 2001. It's a little biased, but what the fuck!

Enjoy.


Sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s two similar books were published. One was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and the other was Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by John Cleland. The former is an immensely long (I think it's longer than War and Peace), silly book by a crack-pot, philosopher-novelist. The latter is a late-Enlightenment picaresque dirty novel more commonly known as Fanny Hill.

Both are stroke books. Both appeal to the feverish sensibilities of 17-year-old males and not very sophisticated ones at that. (Sophisticated guys back then were reading Crime and Punishment and de Sade's novels.) Anyone who takes Ayn Rand's book (or the rest of her work) seriously is still engaging in a wank, whether political, philosophical, literary or economic (this last variety is currently quite popular, endless porn on the Internet notwithstanding). Anyone using Cleland's book for what it was obvious written for is engaged in an honest act.

For readers much past 17, neither book has much merit. But both are good for some kind of a jerk-off, should you choose to indulge. I confess to have wasted a few hours when I was young and foolish trying to read Atlas Shrugged. Its style places it somewhere around the average woman's magazine fiction of its day such as appeared in Woman's Home Companion. I gave it up after about page 25. Fanny Hill was a more constant companion when I was still too uptight to approach the opposite sex.

No one has ever taken Cleland's book seriously (although any book banned for 200 years can't be all bad). But, incredibly, people did and do take Ayn Rand so. I saw her once at NYU, about 1962. She was a shrill, unfortunately ugly woman (her photographs don't do her justice: she looked like the Wicked Witch of the West's ugly sister). She was not well received politically when she dismissed the Civil Rights Movement as a violation of the right of employers to discriminate!

Nor was her fervent advocacy of the cause of some GE executives just jailed for price fixing on a massive scale received with much sympathy, nor was her complicity with McCarthyism, which was noted by speakers from the floor. A few months later her boy-toy Nathaniel Branden made an appearance. He was better looking, but his presentation of the philosophy of Objectivism didn't exactly set off fireworks.

Nowadays, Rand's various works are somewhat the rage. As long as self-indulgence, selfishness, racism and other neat stuff is popular, Rand will be read. How can you argue with Alan Greenspan's favorite scribe? Bill Gates probably has a copy of Atlas Shrugged by his bed like Stalin had a copy of Machiavelli.

Me, if I want to go that route, I prefer Fanny Hill.RED DAVE

[Pogue]

There's a new book on Ayn Rand called Goddess of the Market (http://mises.org/store/Goddess-of-the-Market-Ayn-Rand-and-the-American-Right-P632.aspx?utm_source=Mises_Daily&utm_medium=Embedded_Link&utm_campaign=Item_in_Daily), by Jennifer Burns. The author isn't quite zeroed in on Intellectual property as such, but she provides enough information to document the fact that for Rand the issue of her intellectual property became increasingly important throughout her life. She documents how Rand's royalties from her work Night of January 16th gave her the first taste of financial independence, and how she later came to believe that she had not received enough. With each successive negotiation for book royalties and film rights, her terms became ever higher and ever more strict.

Rand had perfectly sound instincts (a person should charge as much as he or she can for first run) but Rand's rationale was rooted in this modern notion of intellectual property, a theory, shared by nearly all her contemporaries, on which she was never once challenged. In fact, to a great extent, her philosophy exalted the role and rights of the creator more than any, probably, in the history of ideas. This is a great contribution, but she took the notion too far — for Rand, intellectual rights trumped real rights.

This comes through not only in her writings (The Fountainhead can be given a property-rights spin but ultimately it is about intellectual rights) but also in her personal relationships. Here, property in her ideas became a source of conflict with friends such as Isabel Paterson, with whom Rand was friends for many years. Tensions entered into the friendship when Rand accused Paterson of taking her ideas in the writing of God of the Machine.http://mises.org/images/icons/pdf.png (http://mises.org/books/godofmachine.pdf) Paterson responded that Rand's contribution to the ideas in this book was minimal. They wrote back and forth and argued over specific instances of who said what to whom. They sorted through events in their associations, attempting to reconstruct them and divvy the ideas.

In truth, what had happened to Rand and Paterson is called a "conversation." One person says something, and another elaborates, which prompts new thoughts, new directions, new comments — a consensus — which then gets interrupted by new thoughts, points of departure, new elaborations, a new consensus, and so on. And if you know how Rand was, staying up all night in these detailed discussions of theory, you know that it would be simply impossible to sort out who owned what.

You can try this yourself with a friend. Talk for 15 minutes and then attempt to draw an ownership map of ideas. See if you can come to a consensus. Then see what the attempt does to your friendship.

Reading through the history of Rand's relationships with people, we find that this dynamic was pervasive — again, I'm not saying this as accusation but merely observing that it as an extension of her theory concerning the ownership of ideas.

This is particularly a problem for a theory of life that exalts independent thinking and creativity. What if the idea that one should be independent and creative itself actually came from someone else? One must constantly acknowledge one's debts. And, moreover, one should be cautious about remixing the ideas, lest the property right in the idea of being creative be stained and marred.

Marrying the idea of intellectual property to the notion of being independent generates extreme dependence and mandatory intellectual compliance.

The famed role of Nathaniel Brandon in the Rand circle was to be not only a teacher of her theories but also an enforcer of Rand's intellectual property rights, which involved excluding people as much as it did including people. He was caught on the horns of a dilemma in many ways. On the one hand, he was seeking followers for Rand's ideas. On the other hand, he wanted to protect her ideas from being stolen (he probably wanted to maintain his own monopolistic possession of them).

What kind of person, then, are you willing to tolerate as part of the inner circle? It would have to be a person who would repeat the ideas of Rand exactly, without alteration, and constantly cite Rand for her innovation — and assert her right to the idea. Taken far enough, one can imagine the result: a drone army of people who footnoted nearly every phrase coming out of their mouths.

It was in the pursuit of intellectual property that Nathaniel intervened in Objectivist clubs to prevent them from using the word Objectivist, to prevent them from using quotes from John Galt, to prevent them even from advertising lectures on the topic by students of her ideas. As Burns demonstrates — but without clarity of causal explanation — the movement for Rand's ideas only really took off after Nathaniel Brandon had been cast out of the inner circle. The monopoly on her ideas was no longer possible to maintain. They were set free (not fully open source, but at least far less restricted), and thereby flourished.

Rand was not entirely happy about this transition. Her impression was not entirely invalid that people were "robbing" her of her thoughts: Rand was having a huge influence. Like the professors discussed above, however, she turned away from an open-source model and into IP enforcement. Of the Libertarian Party, for example, she wrote, "it's a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas." But this raises the question, Would it have been better had the libertarians not been influenced by Rand? From her perspective, yes: it is even worse when ideas are stolen and then mixed with ideas with which she disagreed.

The rest of the story played out as we might expect. She ended up feeling robbed and looted by everyone who was influenced by her. My own reading of her biography is that her belief in the property of her ideas led to her experiencing unnecessary grief. After all, it didn't have to be this way.

Who wrote this?

[Tungsten]

I get the impression based on what I have read of her that she was suffering from depression by this point and was seeking a means of alleviating it and thought sycophants were it.
Ouch - Rand utterly despised those sort of people. I wouldn't bother with anything book concerning Rand's personal life. It's more of a soap opera than anything else and there's more mythology surrounding Rand than surrounded most biblical figures - most of it is probably guff. Apparently, she worked for the Illuminati and I doubt that too.

Which is ironic given how much she pilfered from everyone else. There can't be one original word in her "philosophy".
I doubt you've read enough to come to that conclusion. It's a mixed bag - but certainly not devoid of originality. I've heard that sales of her books have risen sharply thanks to the current crisis. She was no economist, though. Hopefully her readers will take an interest and look for others (Mises, Hayek) who can explain the source of the crisis with more accuracy.

---------


I confess to have wasted a few hours when I was young and foolish trying to read Atlas Shrugged.
It's not really your sort of book anyway; no pictures.

[Demogorgon]

Ouch - Rand utterly despised those sort of people.That never seemed to stop her associating with them though, did it? Disagreeing with her was enough to be permanently expelled from her company. Even associating with someone who had been so expelled was sufficient.

I doubt you've read enough to come to that conclusion. It's a mixed bag - but certainly not devoid of originality. I've heard that sales of her books have risen sharply thanks to the current crisis. She was no economist, though. Hopefully her readers will take an interest and look for others (Mises, Hayek) who can explain the source of the crisis with more accuracy.

Believing some of the things you do (Austrian economics as mainstream for instance), you are in little position to conjecture as to what others may know. Certainly I cannot think of anything original at all in what passed for Rand's belief system. If you think you can, feel free to name it. Though I must point out that it is very easy for those who know little philosophy to think she was original, as she almost never gave credit to others for the ideas she lifted. Hence unless you recognise them from elsewhere, you won't necessarily realise that they aren't her original work.

And God knows where to start with the notion that Mises could possibly explain the economic crises. Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to claim any knowledge o economics again. What you do is come up with a set of rather nasty beliefs, and then try to retroactively find some theory to justify it, the best you can find being weak a priori dogmatics. You then try and pass this off as a valid argument. Not going to work I am afraid.

[Robert]

Disagreeing with her was enough to be permanently expelled from her company.

Wait ... Ayn Rand was in the Commie Club?

[Demogorgon]

Wait ... Ayn Rand was in the Commie Club?
No but she would have fit right in. The CC is exactly like her circle in many ways.

Though to be fair the worst the CC does is harass you a bit on a message board nobody is forcing you to post on. Rand and her cronies could deprive you of your friends and sometimes even turn your closest family members against you.

[Tungsten]

Believing some of the things you do (Austrian economics as mainstream for instance), you are in little position to conjecture as to what others may know.
When did I say that?

Certainly I cannot think of anything original at all in what passed for Rand's belief system.
When you haven't read anything besides wikipedia, I guess that can be a challenge. I believe she came up with a novel solution to the analytic/synthetic dichotomy and the fact/value dichotomy. Rand is contraversial anyway. You don't become contraversial by being unoriginal.

Though I must point out that it is very easy for those who know little philosophy to think she was original, as she almost never gave credit to others for the ideas she lifted. Hence unless you recognise them from elsewhere, you won't necessarily realise that they aren't her original work.

Which ideas - aside from the political? She claims Aristotle, and that's certainly true but IIRC she did credit him. I don't know about anyone else. Philosophy isn't really my thing. Most of it's bunk anyway.


And God knows where to start with the notion that Mises could possibly explain the economic crises. Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to claim any knowledge o economics again.
Yes, let's not pay any attention to people who win Nobel Prizes for predicting when these sort of things occur and instead listen to the militants whose systems are reknown failure and whose explanation doesn't extend far beyond "it were capitalism what done it."

What you do is come up with a set of rather nasty beliefs, and then try to retroactively find some theory to justify it, the best you can find being weak a priori dogmatics.
I was going to say exactly the same thing about yours.

Anyway, when it comes to failed predictions, I'm afraid you're right up there with Nostradamus and the Jehovas Witnesses.

When you claim that capitalism is on the brink of collapse for a century and a half, don't be surprised when people eventually stop listening.

------------


Wait ... Ayn Rand was in the Commie Club?
LOL! Here Robert, have slice of win.

[Tungsten]

Rand and her cronies could deprive you of your friends and sometimes even turn your closest family members against you.
I'm calling bullshit on this. I know how cults can turn people against their own family, but how did they manage to turn people's own friends and family members against them? I don't buy that. Your friends and family have far closer ties to you than some Randian who just came waltzing into your life.

Where are the sources for this information?

[Demogorgon]

When did I say that?
Result of a quick search: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1200527&postcount=98
This was made in response to myself claiming Austrian economics was largely ignored or outright dismissed by mainstream economists.

If you were telling the truth (unlikely, considering that can't even tell the difference between a tax and a utility bill), you'd know that the "Austrian pseudo science" and it's variants, right or wrong, are generally the order of the day.


Which ideas - aside from the political? She claims Aristotle, and that's certainly true but IIRC she did credit him. I don't know about anyone else. Philosophy isn't really my thing. Most of it's bunk anyway.
A lot of it is, but that isn't relevant here. Plagairism is still plagairism if you plaigarise bunk


Yes, let's not pay any attention to people who win Nobel Prizes for predicting when these sort of things occur and instead listen to the militants whose systems are reknown failure and whose explanation doesn't extend far beyond "it were capitalism what done it."Ah, the Nobel prizes. The thing is few Austrians actually won them and when they did it was during the time when Assar Lindbeck chaired the prize committee, rather undermining the integrity of the prize.

Besides the significant award: Hayek's, was shared with Gunnar Myrdal, an economist about as far from the Austrian school as you can go and was given for their work regarding the connections between economic and social phenomena.

It has to be acknowledged that Hayek actually was quite a good economist when he wasn't promoting his nasty political views but tellingly many, even most, Austrians disown him.

Still, the Nobel prize has been given to a wide variety of economists, many of whom have been on the left and have rather more credible explanations for what is happening than the Austrians.

Indeed I don't think many Austrians today really understand their own theories. You will soon find them coming back to fiat money, but in reality the banking crises just now isn't really relevant to that. The way banks work under capitalism is centred around the fractional reserve system and that is as much a part of the gold standard as it is of fiat money.


When you claim that capitalism is on the brink of collapse for a century and a half, don't be surprised when people eventually stop listening.

I don't think many have said it is forever on the brink of collapse, rather explained its flaws and how it causes economic ruin. Predictions that are borne out again and again and again.

I'm calling bullshit on this. I know how cults can turn people against their own family, but how did they manage to turn people's own friends and family members against them? I don't buy that. Your friends and family have far closer ties to you than some Randian who just came waltzing into your life.

Where are the sources for this information?http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

[Plagueround]

No but she would have fit right in. The CC is exactly like her circle in many ways.

Though to be fair the worst the CC does is harass you a bit on a message board nobody is forcing you to post on. Rand and her cronies could deprive you of your friends and sometimes even turn your closest family members against you.


And here I constantly stick up for you and thank your posts. Ah well. :(

[greymatter]

I know this is kind of out of line for this thread, but do any of you find Ayn Rand the least bit sexy?

Back in 07' when I was a commie dropping tons of 'cid, I saw Rush in concert and for some reason decided to go out and buy Atlas the next day. After reading that, I got some strong ideas - namely: Individualism, which stands opposed to the kind of homogenized consumer culture that we have today. Rand's work is about personal struggles against the norm - 'revolutionaries' should definitely identify with that if they hope to do anything but bellyache on internet forums. Rand also goes to great lengths to communicate the importance of critical thinking - something the people who run FOX don't want you to do.

Add to that her wicked skill as a writer, and I find that little anarchist russian babe pretty damn hot.

[greymatter]

Yeah, and she was a proto-fascist, hated anarchists (even right wing libertarians), hated homosexuals, derided evolution, called big corporations "the most persecuted minority", glorified rape in her novels etc etc etc but never mind all that though.

Nobody's perfect, but you have to take the good with the bad. Mao was a polygamist and chairmao of a supposedly communist party at the same time WTF? What about Che's obsession with violence?... Or Kim Il Sung's insistence on making his brat kid leader of a country?

[Havet]

I know this is kind of out of line for this thread, but do any of you find Ayn Rand the least bit sexy?


I do :blushing:

[Tungsten]

Result of a quick search: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...7&postcount=98 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1200527&postcount=98)
This was made in response to myself claiming Austrian economics was largely ignored or outright dismissed by mainstream economists.
Oh yes, that was back in the good old days when you an Nutter were calling libertarianism fascism, defending the LTV and attacking the concept of self-ownership - and before I realised that academia was as corrupt as everywhere else.

Predictions that are borne out again and again and again.

For example?

Let's face it, when you advocate taking from one group and giving to another and then think that everyone is going to just carry on as before, then you're pretty much finished.

It says in the link you posted:





In the manner of many cults, loyalty to the guru had to supersede loyalty to family and friends – typically the first personal crises for the fledgling Randian. If non-Randian family and friends persisted in their heresies even after being hectored at some length by the young neophyte, they were then considered to be irrational and part of the Enemy and had to be abandoned.
It says that Randians were manipulated to abandon their family, not the other way round. In other words, not what you claimed.

-------------------


Yeah, and she was a proto-fascist,
I seem to recall her saying that fascism and communism were two versions of the same political system, or words to that effect.

derided evolution,
News to me. When? Where?

called big corporations "the most persecuted minority", glorified rape in her novels etc etc etc but never mind all that though.
Wasn't it businessmen that were the most persecuted minority.

But don't left the facts get in the way of a cheap rant. It never bothered you in the other thread.

[greymatter]

So? Proto-fascism is a stage before fascism. Politically the effect of her writings are for people to move from a left-wing socialist viewpoint to a right-wing quasi-fascist viewpoint. Today her supporters support massive corporations, support large scale massacres of foreigners (Iranians to be specific) etc etc.
WHAT? Since when have libertarians been warmongers? AND what makes corporations more evil the more massive they become?

Of course, you'd want to dilly dally about her words again, but IMO this just shows her mentality against truly scientific theory. It just extends to her worldview about society in general.
She was a writer in the fifties, not a fucking biologist. She was expressing a skeptical viewpoint because she had no facts.

In the US, corporations are legally people. But I distinctly remember it being "Big business", unfortunately I don't have her book in front of me, otherwise I would have given you the quote.
Actually, it was the "men of the mind" who were persecuted. Creative, talented people who get sponged off by ingrates. She actually dissed some big businesses like Orren Boyle's shitty steel company.

[Bilan]

Wait ... Ayn Rand was in the Commie Club?

Win!

[La Comédie Noire]

Frankly, Ayn Rand just sucked at writing and was an asshole to boot. The only bit of truth I stumbled upon while wading through her bog of shit was her character Ellsworth M. Toohey.

Philanthropists and other assorted reformists really are just in it to build an image and enrich themselves.

[Demogorgon]

It says that Randians were manipulated to abandon their family, not the other way round. In other words, not what you claimed.

I think I've more or less reached the quota of crap from you I have to humour this month, but I have to draw attention to this. Can you really not see the problem with what you just said there?

[Tungsten]

I think I've more or less reached the quota of crap from you I have to humour this month, but I have to draw attention to this. Can you really not see the problem with what you just said there?
Oh no! Hurt butt at twelve o'clock.

There's a point to cults manipulating people to abandon their families - it's so their families can't pull them away afterwards. There's no point to manipulating a person's family to abandon them - not to mention the obvious common sense factor, which is lacking in the majority of your arguments (who is going to believe the words of some random cultist who just appears over a member of their own family? And how would they get someone's entire family to abandon them? They've got some hope of pulling that off.)

[Demogorgon]

Oh no! Hurt butt at twelve o'clock.

There's a point to cults manipulating people to abandon their families - it's so their families can't pull them away afterwards. There's no point to manipulating a person's family to abandon them - not to mention the obvious common sense factor, which is lacking in the majority of your arguments (who is going to believe the words of some random cultist who just appears over a member of their own family? And how would they get someone's entire family to abandon them? They've got some hope of pulling that off.)
Right, let me try to explain. Making people's family abandon them was the penalty for crossing Rand or her senior cronies. Much of Rand's cult was inter-related and if they didn't have relatives with them when they joined, they soon did, due to the tendency to marry other members of the cult (hardly surprising given that they tended to avoid social relations with outsiders. That meant that if you did something you shouldn't have (such as having a thought of your own) not only were you out, but your family and friends had to ostracise you to remain in favour themselves. Hence the penalty for crossing Rand was frequently loss of family.

[maya]

Actually, it was the "men of the mind" who were persecuted. Creative, talented people who get sponged off by ingrates. She actually dissed some big businesses like Orren Boyle's shitty steel company.

Orren Boyle's character is no different to the CEOs of AIG Citi or any other bailed-out corporation that takes taxpayer money to survive.

All of the creative, talented people just happened to run hugely successful corporations. Everyone else was just dirt.

[maya]

for Rand, intellectual rights trumped real rights.

The great irony often lost on Randians.

Intellectual property is just another government-sponsored monopoly. Where would her 'men of the mind' be without government force to back up their 'rights'?

Rand would have had no problem jailing someone for copying Atlas Shrugged. But kneeling buses for disabled children.. that is going to far!!!!

[greymatter]

Orren Boyle's character is no different to the CEOs of AIG Citi or any other bailed-out corporation that takes taxpayer money to survive.HOLY HAMBURGER, YOU'RE RIGHT! Now, ask yourself... Do you support nationalization of key industries such as railroads, airlines, and steel?


All of the creative, talented people just happened to run hugely successful corporations. Everyone else was just dirt.I know that defending Rand from straw-man arguments will probably make me seem like I agree with her, but her book was not as you describe. She hated on people who were more concerned with what people think of you than what you are actually doing. She had all kinds of non-superhuman characters in her novels to support her main characters. The difference between them and the antagonists is that they were willing to help produce wealth, while the antagonists wanted to either take it or have it given to them.


Intellectual property is just another government-sponsored monopoly. Where would her 'men of the mind' be without government force to back up their 'rights'?Best point I have ever seen against Rand. Pat yourself on the back, this is a good one.:thumbup1:


Rand would have had no problem jailing someone for copying Atlas Shrugged. But kneeling buses for disabled children.. that is going to far!!!!Not at all! Rand would rather you simply paid her back for the book once you become wealthy, which you invariably will once you read her executive how-to manual. Golden handshake here I come!
As far as the disabled children go... Once there is enough of them to make the purchase of kneeling buses part of the rational self-interest of the bus company, there will be kneeling buses.

[maya]

HOLY HAMBURGER, YOU'RE RIGHT! Now, ask yourself... Do you support nationalization of key industries such as railroads, airlines, and steel?

Absolutely! Boyle was no socialist, and bailing out companies and leaving them in private hands is absolutely not socialism.

I wish they did nationalize AIG, GM, Citi and all of the other companies that took government money, instead of funneling debt to be paid back by the working class. At the very least, it would have been completely honest and open.


I know that defending Rand from straw-man arguments will probably make me seem like I agree with her, but her book was not as you describe. She hated on people who were more concerned with what people think of you than what you are actually doing. She had all kinds of non-superhuman characters in her novels to support her main characters. The difference between them and the antagonists is that they were willing to help produce wealth, while the antagonists wanted to either take it or have it given to them.

The difference is in real life, those who become extremely wealthy rarely do so off of their own ideas and initiatives. Rand showed the CEO of a metal corporation inventing the metal himself. WTF?

CEOs may be energetic, charismatic, attractive etc. etc. but very, very rarely if ever do they may the actual stuff that is the source of their wealth.


Not at all! Rand would rather you simply paid her back for the book once you become wealthy, which you invariably will once you read her executive how-to manual. Golden handshake here I come!

I for one would not have wanted to get on her bad side.. :)


As far as the disabled children go... Once there is enough of them to make the purchase of kneeling buses part of the rational self-interest of the bus company, there will be kneeling buses.

What is rational is not always what is right or moral. It was in the rational interest of Southerners to hold slaves.

It was in the absence of natural law that Rand had to formulate her own ethics, which places 'ideas' (Rand's own profession) as the highest form of property and the most morally justifiable.

It perplexes me why Rand had such disdain for democracy as a concept. If the citizens of a community vote to provide kneeling buses, why should that be any less valid than obtaining them through largess or the market?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I know this is kind of out of line for this thread, but do any of you find Ayn Rand the least bit sexy?
I do :blushing:She's a bit old and dead don't you think? Well her heart didn't pump blood while she was alive either, so I guess what's the diff.?

http://img.youtube.com/vi/FzGFytGBDN8/0.jpg

Photo: Ayn Rand's corpse on the Phil Donahue show.


Seriously she was a terrible fiction writer - objectively speaking. I like Upton Sinclairs politics, but I don't pretend like he was a great writer or anything.

Subjectively speaking she was a horrible human and her fans/cult are like the right-wing version of Morrissey fans: where did they come from, who are they, why are they so pretentious and full of themselves?

[Havet]

She's a bit old and dead don't you think? Well her heart didn't pump blood while she was alive either, so I guess what's the diff.?

Of course I find her more attractive when she was younger

http://mankabros.com/onmedea/ayn_rand.jpg

Anyway, I find much more attractive the concept of Dagny Taggart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagny_Taggart), you know, the railroad heroine ^^

[maya]

Of course I find her more attractive when she was younger

Not sure why she bothered with the wedding ring.


Anyway, I find much more attractive the concept of Dagny Taggart, you know, the railroad heroine ^^

Fictional people are always a lot more attractive than their real life counterparts. Do you find Meg Whitman attractive? :)

[Havet]

Not sure why she bothered with the wedding ring.

Perhaps she was one of those people who believe in open relationships, who knows.


Fictional people are always a lot more attractive than their real life counterparts. Do you find Meg Whitman attractive? :)

You mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman) Meg Whitman? Otherwise I don't know who you're talking about.

[Demogorgon]

The second picture gives a good indication of how she ended up looking the way she did in the first. Avoid smoking people.

[Havet]

The second picture gives a good indication of how she ended up looking the way she did in the first. Avoid smoking people.

haha true

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Which ideas - aside from the political? She claims Aristotle, and that's certainly true but IIRC she did credit him. I don't know about anyone else. Philosophy isn't really my thing. Most of it's bunk anyway.


If you don't have a reasonable background in philosophy how can you make an informed claim whether or not she was just using established ideas?

Oh and yes, Everything she ever said had been said by others(which is not a fault.), but better and with more depth.(which is the problem.).



Actually, it was the "men of the mind" who were persecuted. Creative, talented people who get sponged off by ingrates. She actually dissed some big businesses like Orren Boyle's shitty steel company.

Which funnily enough, are not the people who benefit most under capitalism.(Much less laisze-faire capitalism, GOODBYE science grants.)