Ayn Rand Was NOT a Libertarian

Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought.

But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism. For example, Rand said:

All kinds of people today call themselves libertarians, especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that theyre anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. Its a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but dont want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. Thats the Libertarian movement.

***

Id rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis [than a candidate from the Libertarian Party].

***

[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians wont get. Todays events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideasI wont say from whomis irresponsible, and in todays context, nearly immoral.

***

[Libertarians] are not defenders of capitalism. Theyre a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which cant be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think its a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

***

Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact oppositewith religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can findand they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; Im not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

***

[Question] Why dont you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

[Rand] Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. Theyd like to have an amoral political program.

***

The Libertarians arent worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

EDIT: source http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

she was specifically referring to master race anarco-capitalism, or Rothboardians

so then........what are you doing for christmas?

I wonder what 50 Shades of Grey would have been like if Ayn Rand wrote it.

[Rand] Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. Theyd like to have an amoral political program.weedfacekilla

This attitude of hers is pretty well known. The problem is that she boiled down libertarians within the Party to the vocal groups of anarchists, consequentialists/utilitarians, and nihilists/moral relativists. Admittedly, those people are in the Party, but a huge part of the Party is in fact made up of those who want a moral political philosophy. That rather large group within the LP champions the "non-aggression principle", which is in fact a moral precept that defines its political philosophy overall and is derived directly from Rand's philosophy.

So whether she likes it or not, many in the LP don't fit the model she tried to impute on them. She had reason to be upset at the rather large contingent that took an amoral approach to politics and villified her in the process, but that isn't even arguably the majority. Really Rand's real complaint seems to be that those people were allowed in that Party to begin with. She was all about excluding those who disagree with her on what she considered fundamental principles, and she had difficulty tolerating anyone who also tolerated such people.

I wonder what 50 Shades of Grey would have been like if Ayn Rand wrote it.Storm_Marine

She did write it. Read The Fountainhead.

She may have not been "officially" a Libertarian, but the ideals of right-leanin Libertarians and Ayn Rand bear more than enough similarties to equate them. For that very reason, Libertarians (many on this board in fact) are defensive of Ayn Rand. A great deal of Libertarians are Ayn Rand-lite IMO.

She may have not been "officially" a Libertarian, but the ideals of right-leanin Libertarians and Ayn Rand bear more than enough similarties to equate them. For that very reason, Libertarians (many on this board in fact) are defensive of Ayn Rand. A great deal of Libertarians are Ayn Rand-lite IMO.

GreySeal9

You're only looking at the political implications of Objectivism not the philosophy as a whole.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

She may have not been "officially" a Libertarian, but the ideals of right-leanin Libertarians and Ayn Rand bear more than enough similarties to equate them. For that very reason, Libertarians (many on this board in fact) are defensive of Ayn Rand. A great deal of Libertarians are Ayn Rand-lite IMO.

Storm_Marine

You're only looking at the political implications of Objectivism not the philosophy as a whole.

Let's say that your statement is correct. How does that dissolve the similarites, especially if you concede that the political implications of Objectivism bears resemblence to Libertarianism?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

She may have not been "officially" a Libertarian, but the ideals of right-leanin Libertarians and Ayn Rand bear more than enough similarties to equate them. For that very reason, Libertarians (many on this board in fact) are defensive of Ayn Rand. A great deal of Libertarians are Ayn Rand-lite IMO.

GreySeal9

You're only looking at the political implications of Objectivism not the philosophy as a whole.

Let's say that your statement is correct. How does that dissolve the similarites, especially if you concede that the political implications of Objectivism bears resemblence to Libertarianism?

When it comes to 'the role of goverment' the two are the almost the same. But Objectivism has wide ranging claims about reality, ethics, and asthetics that are absent in libertarianism.

Just read her work, the premises and reasoning she uses to arrive at her reccomendation of laizze faire capitialism is totally alien to most libertarians.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

You're only looking at the political implications of Objectivism not the philosophy as a whole.

Storm_Marine

Let's say that your statement is correct. How does that dissolve the similarites, especially if you concede that the political implications of Objectivism bears resemblence to Libertarianism?

When it comes to 'the role of goverment' the two are the almost the same. But Objectivism has wide ranging claims about reality, ethics, and asthetics that are absent in libertarianism.

Just read her work, the premises and reasoning she uses to arrive at her reccomendation of laizze faire capitialism is totally alien to most libertarians.

I take it you understand now?

I think the difference is that libertarians somehow believe capitalism is non-violent and anti-authoritarian. If no one used force we wouldn't have capitalism. Landlords force people to obey their commands.RushKing

LOL, no that's not the difference. The term isn't specifically "force", but "aggression". These are defined as the initiation of force. And Objectivism and Libertarianism agree on that.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Let's say that your statement is correct. How does that dissolve the similarites, especially if you concede that the political implications of Objectivism bears resemblence to Libertarianism?

Storm_Marine

When it comes to 'the role of goverment' the two are the almost the same. But Objectivism has wide ranging claims about reality, ethics, and asthetics that are absent in libertarianism.

Just read her work, the premises and reasoning she uses to arrive at her reccomendation of laizze faire capitialism is totally alien to most libertarians.

I take it you understand now?

I'm not sure what point you think you've made. Libertarianism is a political ideology, so it is more than appropriate to compare Libertarianism to Objectivism within the realm of the political claims of the latter. Not to mention that political beliefs make implicit claims about ethics and reality.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

When it comes to 'the role of goverment' the two are the almost the same. But Objectivism has wide ranging claims about reality, ethics, and asthetics that are absent in libertarianism.

Just read her work, the premises and reasoning she uses to arrive at her reccomendation of laizze faire capitialism is totally alien to most libertarians.

GreySeal9

I take it you understand now?

I'm not sure what point you think you've made. Libertarianism is a political ideology, so it is more than appropriate to compare Libertarianism to Objectivism within the realm of the political claims of the latter. Not to mention that political beliefs make implicit claims about ethics and reality.

Then specify that. Instead of flat out equating the two, which is obnoxious to both parties and shows you're completely ignorant about at least one of them.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]I think the difference is that libertarians somehow believe capitalism is non-violent and anti-authoritarian. If no one used force we wouldn't have capitalism. Landlords force people to obey their commands.m0zart

LOL, no that's not the difference. The term isn't specifically "force", but "aggression". These are defined as the initiation of force. And Objectivism and Libertarianism agree on that.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

I take it you understand now?

Storm_Marine

I'm not sure what point you think you've made. Libertarianism is a political ideology, so it is more than appropriate to compare Libertarianism to Objectivism within the realm of the political claims of the latter. Not to mention that political beliefs make implicit claims about ethics and reality.

Then specify that. Instead of flat out equating the two, which is obnoxious to both parties and shows you're completely ignorant about at least one of them.

What I said is that they bear alot of similarites (enough to equate them),not that they were the same thing.

Since Libertariasm is a political ideology and is most appropriately compared to objectivism in that realm, it's pretty obvious that they are being compared in a manner that is consistent with the claim in bold red. I don't think I need to hold everybody's hands when they are more than capable of reading between the lines.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm not sure what point you think you've made. Libertarianism is a political ideology, so it is more than appropriate to compare Libertarianism to Objectivism within the realm of the political claims of the latter. Not to mention that political beliefs make implicit claims about ethics and reality.

GreySeal9

Then specify that. Instead of flat out equating the two, which is obnoxious to both parties and shows you're completely ignorant about at least one of them.

What I said is that they bear alot of similarites (enough to equate them),not that they were the same thing.

Hinduism and Bhuddism have a lot of similarities. But you can't simply equate them and still look like a person that can think.

Jeez just read something on Objectivism and it should be be obvious to you.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Then specify that. Instead of flat out equating the two, which is obnoxious to both parties and shows you're completely ignorant about at least one of them.

Storm_Marine

What I said is that they bear alot of similarites (enough to equate them),not that they were the same thing.

Hinduism and Bhuddism have a lot of similarities. But you can't simply equate them and still look like a person that can think.

Jeez just read something on Objectivism and it should be be obvious to you.

A reading of Objecticism instantly brings about unmistakable similarites to Libertarianism, which is why many Libertarians are defensive of Ayn Rand.

Maybe equate was too strong a word, but there is no doubt that much Libertarian thought is derivative of the same basic concepts that Objectivism is derivative of.

I have to admit tho, storm: I'm a little bored of this somewhat pendantic conversation, so I'll just say that Libertarianism has similarties to Objectivism to make you happy.