Ayn Rand revival gathers pace in US universities, despite detractors

Of all the times to introduce Ayn Rand to the classroom! Unless it's introduced in the context of pure critique of her ideas, such teaching can only be seen as a reactionary movement aimed at whitewashing the well-deserved poor image of unbridled capitalism.

Dr. Fredrics, Considering that "unbridled capitalism" ultimately can only mean (individual) liberty, I wish you would consider substituting "liberty" for "unbridled capitalism", and then reconsider the implications of your post. Not that Ayn Rand's work shouldn't have been introduced before, it most certainly should have, but _now_ is precisely the perfect time for Americans to read her work. Simply put, she's the only contemporary defender of liberty who supported the concept with a real basis that is completely philosophically linked to reality. 1) If man wasn't oriented to survive, then what is the better alternative? 2) If man wasn't oriented to survive by reason, then what's the better alternative? 3) If man wasn't oriented to survive by rational selfishness, then what method trumps rational selfishness for his means of survival? 4) If Laissez-Faire Capitalism isn't the real and ideal system for allowing individuals to operate as I've indicated, then what could be the better alternative? These are honest questions that underpin the nature of America's cultural and political crisis ...and how it can be solved.

What a great time to introduce Ayn Rand! The regulatory state is failing, and we need to educate why reason and morality are key to survival on Earth, and Capitalism is their political manifestation. We'll just have to drag along the religious right and the anti-individualist left.

There has never been a more urgent need for the study of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Her ideas are proven valid with every failure of the "mixed"economy, that is, of government interferance in the free exchange of goods and ideas. Dr. Fredrics is probably a typical academic, teaching the same stale ideas for decades even as they are repeatedly discredited when put into practice. It's time for a philosophy of reason and political freedom to at least get equal time with the philosophies of irrationality and tyranny in American colleges and universites.

While I certainly do not endorse all of Ayn Rand's opinions, although she had a few good points to say the least,the study of her work, given the explicit or implicit Marxist bias that pervades many social science curricula, is, no doubt, a welcome (if somewhat partial) corrective.

Interesting - Ayn Rand (The Aryan Brand?) has been publicised and expounded through mechanisms of altruism unselfishness and co-operation. Funny that! What these type of arguments forget is that in order to have the intellectual freedom resources and stability needed to be able to investigate these viewpoints (an incredible priviledge) we need co-operation altruism and reglation and control. Pure selfishness and free-marketeers only celebrate the free market when they have the resources to float to the top of it. i.e they want a 'free market' that is predictable for them. Personally I think they are pointless weirdos. If they want pure selfishness and survivalism, take away all the skills and resources they have through altruism and sharing (including knowledge, wipe their brains) put them in the wilderness and laugh at them when they die.

They've (we've) tried everything else; might as well try freedom. And w/o a foundation to support it, it's doomed to fail. Objectivism defends freedom, capitalism, egoism and life on earth all of the way down to the core. I just hope it's not too late - it looks like it is to me.

This is the perfect time to read and/or study Ayn Rand. Any time is right to read her. Her ideas are compelling. But now we are witnessing the sorry spectacle of a government induced financial collapse being blamed on individual traders-exactly what Miss Rand predicted. Topicality aside though, Ayn Rand had fascinating insights into morality, epistemology, psychology, and many other areas. And her philosophy is systematized-and now able to be studied organically.

Hero, above, claims freedom-lovers want freedom only if they have enough resources to "float to the top" of the market. That's a totally mistaken characterization of free-marketers. It's not about having stuff and floating to the top. It's about being free to *climb*, regardless of how much stuff you have. In a non-free market, the government *impedes* the climbing of some, for the sake of others. In a free market, you simply *get to keep* what you make, and *you get to decide whom you help*. It's the statists, not the free-marketers, who are clamoring for the resources necessary to "float to the top".

Why we need masters in different markets? They always know the key departments where they must show as a statist,and let rest departments travel,fight,climb in a free market. A no war market is the west new for them.But I am not your resource!

Dr Howard Fredrics writes: "...such teaching can only be seen as a reactionary movement aimed at whitewashing the well-deserved poor image of unbridled capitalism." I thought Bertram Scudder was fictional character until I read that.

Great article. Just one thing that should be clarified....Greenspan did indeed study under Ayn Rand at one point in his life. It is important to realize, however, that everything Greenspan did as chairman of the Fed strayed greatly from Ayn Rand's philosophy. Had she been alive, she would have never approved of his taking up the role of running the Fed, and she already vehemently disagreed with the Fed's manipulation of interest rates and the money supply. What Greenspan did as Chairman of the Fed was in contradiction to Ayn Rand's beliefs. Many people don't realize this, so automatically blame Ayn Rand's ideas for causing the financial crisis we are facing today. But Greenspan was no follower of Ayn Rand's ideas. If he truly did cause the financial crisis (which he is certainly responsible for in large part because of his constant manipulation of interest rates), it was his own doing, certainly not Ayn Rand's.

Hero - your post is Marxist. Ayn Rand is precisely the antitode to today's Altruist-Marxist dominated political scene. Those attacking her on this page are probably unaware that they are parroting Marx and are dishonestly ignoring the enormous burden of regulations and tax that economies have to deal with. Throw in Ludwig Von Mises for economic policy and we're there.

It baffles me how anyone can object to teaching the views of Ayn Rand when it is only her philosophy that justifies the moral basis of individual rights as arising out of the nature of man. This fact just underlines the vapidity of what passes for academic philosophical thought today.

Some people hate/fear freedom. History proves that only freedom allows prosperity. Some people hate/fear successful people and realize that they could never be as successful, so they try to stop people with ability and ambition from ever reaching their goals. Don’t let them stop you!

I was blown away when I first read Ayn Rand simply because she was completely unlike everyone else I ever read in school. I think that alone is reason enough to teach her writings; students need to know what's out there before they can make an informed decision.

It is bizarre to suggest that our current mess is the product of Ayn Rand ideas. Our country has moved steadily since its founding to greater government control in all aspects of our lives and we are now on the precipice of dictatorship. Capitalism, meaing freedom, is the only moral social system and therefore the only practical one, and it is time we practiced it.

Many thanks to Ayn Rand who completed what our Founding Fathers started. But, without the proper moral base, capitalism was dooomed to fail. Laissez-faire capitalism, what Miss Rand advocated and defended, has never existed, here or anywhere else. The government has crippled capitalism and then punished it for limping.

Precisely the wrong interpretation - it was the reduction of regulation and the encouragement of unethical search for profit that allowed the financial crisis to happen - no-one trusts banks and that is why they are the most highly regulated industry in the world. Were free-market money-makers able to not be blinded by the illusion of big results for high risk transactions (when they ought to have expected complementary big losses) then we wouldn't have to regulate. You have mistaken my views for 'Marxist' but they are 'heroist' - formulated from my own experience - (parrots in case you forget free-marketers just say what someone else has said without challenging it) You evidently use 'marxist' to mean 'diirty communist' but what I am explaining is more about the whole benefitting more than the individual could by co-operation rather than competition. We all know the experience of the person who thinks that its OK if we all live in shit as long as he has a brick to stand on - I'm more of the we all can live in a palace if some of us design, some of us build, some of us furnish. free Marketers conveniently forget that co-operation helps them be able to operate - trade and contracts between individuals and organisations is formalised co-operation - as is regulation governing it. I agree with Jack that some people fear and hate successful people - but that is not what we are talking about here - and in a literally free market people that hate other people would be allowed to kill them - which is why true freedom is guaranteed to keep us all living in shit. As for John Paquette's argument that free market means you keep what you make - that automatically means that people with more resources will 'climb' more - because they have the reources too - which is why people with above average reseources claim that the free market is 'fair' because they want more of it so they can speed to the top of it quicker. a truly free market in terms of achievement would mean that all are given the same resources - more than enought to live on and there is no hereditary passing on of resources and collection of resources is illegal and the resources to persue any endeavour are always provided, but individuals cannot profit from it. That would mean that achievement and development is driven solely by the desire for achievement and development. Do free marketers want this? no why? because it means they will lose the reousces and power they already have and that makes them nervous. - they will bleat that it means that there is regulation and limiting of freedoms - but really they mean 'a system which means I can't have any superiority at all when it starts!!' effectively all we have is the people with lots of shells saying 'I know, lets base everything on shells'

"The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored. “The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships. “The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it? It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it. When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means. If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations." Ayn Rand - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Interesting...but bollocks. There are so many manoevres and false conclusions in there but all that passage is is time-filling until we get to the 'stupid tory boy' conclusion that Russia is the only example of non individualist thinking there is - and that is compounded by the ridiculous idea that the opposite of Russia is obtained by being as individualist as possible. Moving the argument from 'co-operation' to 'some evil people on top and everyone else screwed' is fine.. but buggered up by the fact that even in mildly regulated capitalism the difference between people with influence (money) and people without is greater. Deregulation and free-marketism is likely to increase that - when we see unregulated and disturbed markets, sure its more expensive for businesses, but its better for more people - and then better for the businesses - eg Shell in Nigeria - rake it in - kill people - not sure where the individualist creed somes in there for anyone but shelll... oh and unregulated production in china and india- oops - extreme dehumanising poverty helped only by legislation and regulation there and here. Oh and by the way floating your argument aroung in pseudo-academicese doesn't make it stronger - unless the people reading it are pretty darn ignorant. Rabbiting on in the passive voice does not a scientist make

woah! missing sentence - that should have read 'when we see unregulated and disturbed markets, businesses take full advantage at the expense of freedom and individualism in order to screw the local populace - of course their afraid of regulation - they want to rake it in whilst they get the chance - but when regulation comes in it ,, better for more people - and then better for businesses-

I was at the Objectivist conference in Boston last week and was pleased to see the progress Objectivism is making in academia. Ayn Rand had radical, original ideas that have been ignored in academia for far too long: measurement-omission as the key to concept formation, "life" as the root of the concept "value", physical force as the only way to violate individual rights--just to name a few. Right or wrong, her philosophy is highly relevant to today's issues and to the future of mankind. She draws the issues with clear, stark dividing lines, and allows everyone to clarify where they stand. Everyone should be familiar with her work, if only to be able to define their own positions in her terms. Thanks to THE for this story.

Alan Greenspan's evil equals or surpasses Benedict Arnold's. He KNOWS the fault is his--not Ayn Rand's. Ayn Rand taught laissez-faire capitalism, not rampant regulation. She advocated the complete separation of state and economics. Greenspan turned his back on that, and in sheer power-lust embraced the Fed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all the other govt. chains on the economy. Greenspan is a liar, thief and looter. If there were a hell, the bastard would be burning in it now.

Hero, your post is entirely based on the false and Marxist premise that business is capitalist. The other false premise underpinning your post is that Capitalism is simply anarchy for the rich and big business. "and then better for the businesses - eg Shell in Nigeria" The state is omnipotent in Nigeria and here you are pretending that it has something to do with capitalism. Total dishonesty on your part.

"Precisely the wrong interpretation - it was the reduction of regulation and the encouragement of unethical search for profit that allowed the financial crisis to happen" Total and utter lie. America has a central bank, created in 1913, and that bank is known as the Federal Reserve. A central bank is a nationalization of the money supply and is a key plank of 'THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO'. Every boom and bust is the result of MARXIST intervention in the money supply.

"and in a literally free market people that hate other people would be allowed to kill them - which is why true freedom is guaranteed to keep us all living in shit" This is simply a rewording of MARX's 'anarchy of production'. Strange how someone who claims not to be a Marxist makes so many Marxist statements. Talking to you is like trying to nail a blancmange to the ceiling because words and concepts have no meaning to you.

I think what you are saying here brian is that your usual pigeon-holing-as-argument technique doesn't work on someone who has never read Marx or any other political philosophising - I merely write this from my own experience. Trying to wonder why marx said one thing and I say something similar but not exactly the same is frustrating to you - not sure why really. Boom and bust are not a result of marxism being applied you fool. I don't know why you talk about omnipotency of the state in Nigeria - there is hardly any regulation and control and companies like shell can get away with anything they like as long as they either pay for it or supportit with armed guards. That is closer to the 'free unregulated market' than oil plants in Europe and it is closer to the production anarchy or whatever you indicate marx said was the logical conclusion of market freedom.l Interesiting that I am right and Marx is right and you still thinkg that both theories are weak. blamange is dificult to nail down because nailing down is innappropriate for blamange - not sure why you see this as the blamange's fault perhaps it the nailer who is screwing it all up

All this talk of how Ayn Rand is such a visionary and so right about everything, but her ideas have never been put into practice, reminds me of what the Marxists always say: "There has never been a truly Marxist/Communist state, and Marx's ideas have never been properly put into practice". The two sound absolutely analogous, and the advocates of both philosophies can be equally dismissed as fantasists. The regulated market economy is the closest we're ever going to get to Rand's ideals, as state capitalism is the closest we're ever going to get to Marx's idea of socialism.

Considering the massive amounts of money they've been pouring into high schools in the form of free Rand books for all students, the only surprise is that it's taken so long. Fortunately, most people get past Rand by age 16, when they realize they're not actually the center of the universe.

John P. "In a free market, you simply *get to keep* what you make, and *you get to decide whom you help*. It's the statists, not the free-marketers, who are clamoring for the resources necessary to "float to the top". " Excuse me for thinking your average Wall Street chump might be a little niggardly when it comes to deciding who they help.

Umm... I thought this stuff was settled back in the late 80's, and that the current economic crisis was the swan song of her last living adherents, but it seems we must inevitabley relearn the lessons of (20th century) history. Rand wrote some pleasant and inspirational fiction, and crafted some excellent metaphors for the struggle of the individual in modern society, but it is no more practical as a "philosophy of economics" than the work of Barbara Cartland or C.S. Lewis. And though it may be inconvenient for some to admit, the current problems in our economy stem from lack of regulation of financial behemoths, rather than "institutional suppression of heroic individuals". One must remember that Rand was a refugee from totalitarian Russia, and the traumas and disillusionment she suffered as a young person are apparent in her stories. Her work has several innovative qualities, for example: she applies the characteristics of the female Russian folk hero (who traditionally achieved her goals by acting alone -- as opposed to the male who builds a coalition of helpers -- and by passing tests of moral character) to the male American hero, but if you know her biography, much of her fiction is can be read as thinly disguised self-aggrandizement. Again, I must stress -- as much as we Americans love a charismatic huckster who promise to sell us one pill that will cure all our ills -- Ayn Rand was a fiction writer. She was briefly successful in marketing and branding herself, but one need look no further than the cults surrounding L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley (or, dare I say, that bastard Schickelgruber) to see where this kind of foolishness can lead.

Don begins with a patronising insult with a smuggle ad hominem and then adds "And though it may be inconvenient for some to admit, the current problems in our economy stem from lack of regulation of financial behemoths". The money supply in America, and worldwide, is under FULL STATE CONTROL IN THE FORM OF A CENTRAL BANK. Central banks are MARXIST and designed to PURPOSELY INFLATE THE CURRENCY AND FUND BIG GOVERNMENT. And Don finishes by smearing Objectivists as a cult. Also note that he does not state his own views and recommendations. A totally dishonest troll.

"someone who has never read Marx" You may not have read Marx but your arguments are Marxist. In fact, your posts are a standard troll trick. On forums I have moderated, bozos come on and say "I am not a Marxist" and then make Marxist statements, That is exactly what you do. Wage Slave is also a Marxist and denies even the possiblity of freedom and uses the loathsome term 'state capitalism' which is only ever used by advocates of genocide. He also uses the ad hominem, as well.

Hero also says "Boom and bust are not a result of marxism being applied you fool" Yes it is. It is the result of intervention in the money supply by means of a central bank and central banks are Marxist. Your own argument about business in Nigeria shows that business can benefit from anti-capitalism since interventionism is anti-capitalist but you cling to the Marxist fallacy of business being capitalist because you are dishonest. You then end by saying that Marx was right but somehow that does not make you a Marxist. Clearly, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to you.

Rand detractors, starting here with Dr. Fredrics and then following with ForStudentPower, Don and Hero, all agree on one thing: the individual does not have a right to his own life. They will each find their own convoluted way of saying it, but they believe that the group reigns supreme and individuals are merely ants that must sacrifice for the benefit of the colony. Phrases such as "unbridled capitalism," the equivalent of "unchained freedom," always give them away. You will recognize freedom when there are no chains. I choose not to be master or slave to anyone.

Sorry Bruce but the more you get your knickers in a twist the more foolish you start to look. Bleating about the ad hominim argument but labelling people who disagree with you as 'trolls', then trying to claim some false authority by 'forums I have moderated' etc etc.. Boom and bust is caused by alternate protectionism and runaway trading which is caused by fear and confidence. the effects of which are messes around with by central banks etc but if you look at models of trading societies where there is no regulation one trading entity will invariably become the central bank just as one good will eventually become 'money' or a representation of all goods. To state that organisations that are as much as we can allow fully capitalist - ie. their whole existence is about the capture and subsequent use of capital as not capitalist seems odd to me. Since we are all ignorany to your definitions how about defining what you see as capitalism. As for Rational Infidel you are deliberately )I hope) missing the point about groups and 'slavery to the group'. Co-operation is not the same as subservience - which is obviously what you fear - Its interesting that you seem to be educated and using a computer, yet can't see the benefits of co-operative behaviour that benefits you more than your input

"Boom and bust is caused by alternate protectionism and runaway trading " This is gibberish. " if you look at models of trading societies where there is no regulation " Where are these models? Are they like model aircraft? "To state that organisations that are as much as we can allow fully capitalist - ie. their whole existence is about the capture and subsequent use of capital as not capitalist seems odd to me" Translation: Business is capitalist, no matter how often they support government intervention. I am not a Marxist even when I make Marxist statements. BTW Capitalism is the system of Laissez-faire, free trade, the rule of LAW, not regulation, and limited government. "yet can't see the benefits of co-operative behaviour that benefits you more than your input" Hidden premise here: people don't co-operate under capitalism but do under socialism, fascism and communism. "the effects of which are messes around with by central banks etc " What on earth does this mean. Finally, the American economy is heavily taxed and subject to nearly 80000 pages of regulation. Since you think this is capitalist, words clearly have no meaning to you.

Bruce do you really think that using a phrase that may (or may not) have been used by someone who has instigated genocide makes someone an advocate of genocide? No wonder you are getting steamed up - everything seems to lead to an unconnectred conclusion with you - are you sure you don't just need to relax a bit? Also agreeing with some things someone said is not the same as being a blind acceptor or supporter of everything they said or an advocate of implementing their recommendations. I agree that gravity exists but that doesn't make me a rabid newtonist who wants to see a society craven to the apple.

Godfrey, if you can look at the Soviet Union and declare that it is capitalist, then you are quite capable of advocating genocide. In fact, it a term only used by advocates of totalitarian rule. Also, Hero, your posts have nothing positive to say. You are in favour of nothing except vague generalities.

BTW have you got anything positive to say, Godfrey?

FOR THE RECORD: In this article, the reporter, Jon Marcus, cites me, in effect, as saying that Professor Bill Brewer, of the University of Warwick philosophy department, is co-editing with me a collection of essays on Rand's thought. I never said that to Mr. Marcus. I am in fact, as I told him, co-editing a volume for Wiley-Blackwell, to be called *Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought*, (forthcoming 2010), but Professor Brewer is in no way involved in that project. What I said to Mr. Marcus was that Professor Brewer and I are co-organizing a workshop, on "Perception, Consciousness, and Reference", in which some philosophers whose views on these topics have been influenced by Rand will be participating. My point was to indicate one way in which Rand's views on issues in technical philosophy are increasingly part of the discussion within academic philosophy. Mr. Marcus (and most of those posting here) is understandably especially interested in Rand's political and economic views. My point, though, was about her ideas in epistemology, metaphysics, the relationship of language and thought and of thought and the world, and the like. -Dept of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh

Ayn Rand's thought is couched in inspirational rhetoric, but suffers from weak arguments, and an unfamiliarity with science that cripples her understanding of psychology and human nature in general. Embarrassingly, when examined her key doctrines amount to little more than word games that conceal self-contradictory positions - see for example oxymorons such as "contextual absolute". It is good that Rand is getting more exposure, as her ideas, many of which are quite basic fallacies, need to be exposed to some serious scrutiny.

I should add that for the past few years we have been examining the problems with Rand's ideas from both empirical and logical points of view at www.aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com.

Bruce said: "Godfrey, if you can look at the Soviet Union and declare that it is capitalist, then you are quite capable of advocating genocide." That is quite possibly one of the most absurd things I have ever read because a) no one is suggesting the Soviet Union was capitalist (though it clearly was not in line with Marxist theory in a great many ways) and b) the second part is a straight up non-sequitur. Moreover, agreeing with one thing someone says does not automatically require one to agree with everything they ever said or did or thought. You evidently believe that if one accepts any part of Marx as even possibly valid they must be advocating an ultra oppressive super state that allows no freedoms of any kind. For the record, Hero obviously has a much more nuanced grasp of the issues than you. You (and others) have continually conflated 'capitalism' with 'freedom' and 'regulation' with oppression. You keep citing the historical record as proof that the free market, laissez-faire capitalism you advocate is the best economic theory but the reality is there has never, ever in history been a totally unregulated economy of any scale comparable to the modern US and thus no precedent to give an indication of how well or badly it would work. In addition you choose to ignore the fact that the standard of living you now enjoy is a result of policies that you would undoubtedly remove without a thought because to you anything tangentially related to marxism, communism, socialism, etc is inherently bad and your reasoning for this is quite pathetically simplistic (i.e. any regulation is oppression of personal freedom - a result of the conflation of terms I referred to earlier). If you want to see the results of not regulating capitalist ventures you should look into the early portion of the industrial revolution. No regulation of wages or working hours/conditions led to de-facto enslavement of factory workers and obscene profits for owners who rarely lifted a finger unless it was to stop anyone from looking too closely at the working conditions in their factories. You also forget that every time Reagan or Bush decreased regulation, the gap between the richest people and the average has increased greatly. You apparently take no thought to the ramifications of giving massive multinational corporations that have more money than most countries a free hand. Every time regulation of these companies has decreased, it has resulted in more and more money for less people. You seem to assume a priori that in such a system of unregulated capitalism that most people would do better than they do now. On top of that, you assume that less regulation guarantees more competition but it does not. Large corporations will buy out competitors even more frequently and easily. You seem to be against taxes on individuals yet you obviously take no thought to benefitting from the roads, school, hospitals, fire departments, police, etc. and other infrastructure such taxes pay for. There is a lot more that I could say in response to your confused and ill-conceived parroting of Rand's philosophy but I doubt you will even read this entire post. My hat is off to Hero to debating you so long in a comment section overrun by Rand fanatics who all seem to have agreed with her ideas without considering what her detractors have to say before leaping to defend her ideology which is riddled with elementary fallacies, weak arguments, and incoherence; all of which she veils in inspirational fantasies of the idealized individual (represented by her hilariously unrealistic protagonists) triumphing over the 'oppressive' state (which she represents through equally hilariously unrealistic antagonists who are poor caricatures and straw-men at best). Heres my recommendations for you Rand fanatics: 1) actually look into the criticisms of her work and consider whether or not the arguments presented seem better or worse than your own (if you can drop your biases) and 2) actually acquaint yourselves with the actual history of economic philosophy rather than accepting Rand's characterization of it and 3) consider that Adam Smith style self oriented capitalism (where the greatest benefit for all was achieved by each doing what was best for himself) was disproved mathematically by John Nash in the 50's (for which he won a nobel prize). /End rant.

Daniel Barnes: Haha, thank you for for making my long winded and admittedly meandering rant totally superfluous. I doubt the site will sway the true believers here though.

But! I can't consider Adam Smith style self oriented capitalism.

Hero, you seem to have trouble with some simple concepts. So allow me to help. Cooperation occurs through trade; subservience comes at the point of a gun. You and your ilk seek the latter.

Mojo, you're funny. Choosing not to be your slave makes me a "Rand fanatic." And I like your use of another of those telltale phrases: "obscene profits." Your post could have easily been summarized with the following: "I want others to do my bidding."

Daniel Barnes would have us believe that Rand's defense of an individual's right to his own life is "contra human nature." Historically, he is right. Witness the death and destruction that has come from men seeking to enslave others. Rand, and her intellectual predecessors, present us with an alternative.

"no one is suggesting the Soviet Union was capitalist (though it clearly was not in line with Marxist theory in a great many ways)" A) It is the only way that Marxist theory can work. b) "The regulated market economy is the closest we're ever going to get to Rand's ideals, as state capitalism is the closest we're ever going to get to Marx's idea of socialism." What is implied by this, if not the idea that the Soviet Union was state capitalist? DB, you have nothing positive to say and responding to you is a waste of time.

Rational Infidel, FYI defenses of individualism and reason do not require Objectivism. In fact part of the problem with Objectivism is that Rand's defenses of the aforesaid, while enthusiastic, are so feeble. As David Ramsay Steele remarked, Objectivist doctrine amounts to little more than "bluff, buttressed by abuse of all critics." And that's about all there is to it. Bruce, Rand's final tactic for avoiding the obvious problems with her theories was to avoid her critics and surround herself with sycophantic flunkies. "What I am looking for is intelligent agreement", as she said. If you want to only discuss positive things about Rand - well, fine, I'd hate to burst your bubble...;-)

Rational Infidel: Mojo, you're funny. Choosing not to be your slave makes me a "Rand fanatic." And I like your use of another of those telltale phrases: "obscene profits." Your post could have easily been summarized with the following: "I want others to do my bidding." I characterize you and those like you as Rand fanatics because you seem to swallow everything she says without thinking critically about it. I use the phrase obscene profits because any one person who feels it necessary to have 14 mansions, innumerable cars and several private jets is motivated only by unadulterated greed and gluttony there is a point where selfishness becomes a pointless need to collect as much material goods as possible. Rand's characterization of altruism as slavery is, quite frankly, stupid and her tendency to deal only in absolutes is in direct contradiction to her supposedly rational worldview as the world is rarely as simple as she makes it seem. Your need to put words in my mouth so you can spew the same talking points at me over and over is a pretty weak excuse for an argument. You consistently infer motives from my statements that do not exist and attempt to use them as ad hominem attacks which (even if true) are still a fallacious tactic when trying to undermine a persons arguments. Bruce:"no one is suggesting the Soviet Union was capitalist (though it clearly was not in line with Marxist theory in a great many ways)" A) It is the only way that Marxist theory can work. b) "The regulated market economy is the closest we're ever going to get to Rand's ideals, as state capitalism is the closest we're ever going to get to Marx's idea of socialism." What is implied by this, if not the idea that the Soviet Union was state capitalist? A) You have no empirical basis for making that argument at all. It implies all other ways have been tried and that no other way was successful both of which are false. B) You may be correct about this as the Soviet Union could in fact be characterized as State Capitalism where the state control was implemented by the creation of an autocracy of those chosen to run the corporations. This is NOT Marx's ideal, however, which would allow the workers to participate meaningfully in both the political and economic direction (so as to spread the profits fairly among all the workers) of the country rather than being used as, essentially, just another part of the machinery, existing solely for the profit of others. I had assumed that this second point was what he was implying when he related the SU and state capitalism (i.e. that it was indeed a far cry from what Marx envisioned).

Clarification: Though the SU could be characterized as state capitalism, it is not an uncontested characterization. It is also labelled as a failed or corrupted workers state, bureaucratism, and a new class system. State capitalism itself has many characterizations and formulations under the same name and the SU fits only some of those definitions, most very loosely.

Rand wrote romance novels. As an exercise, try checking Peikoff's "approved" exposition of her "philosophy" for the words "family", "child", or "parent". A human child has an unusually long period of dependence upon the support of others before becoming able to survive. The family that provides this support is the basis of all human society, yet Rand's "philosophy" fails to even consider the altruism and obligations that arise from the family. These go beyond reason to deeper human and animal drives. Man is not rational and few decisions are really driven by reason. Behavioral Economics has clearly demonstrated the role that emotion plays in economic decisions. I, for one, find it hilarious to read Atlas Shrugged as Dagny grows increasingly moist over the powerful and mysterious John Galt. Rand's books deserve a place not in college courses, but on the shelf beside other tripe that has Fabio on the cover.

Harlequin, self describing: "Man is not rational and few decisions are really driven by reason." As an exercise, try imagining why one might listen to anything else such a person has to say.

Rational Infidel should study marketing and advertising and also read some behavioral economics before demonstrating his ignorance of the realities of human behavior. If you think your decisions are all rational then your understanding of yourself, much less anything else, is pretty weak.

Rational Infidel would, judging by his name, like us all to be impressed with his sensational stance. But when you get down to the nitty gritty, Objectivism is all for show. For example, Rand leads with The Virtue of Selfishness as a kind of radical statement, but when it comes to actually applying it she qualifies it and waters it down ultimately to an "it depends" type vagary. Objectivism has some inspirational rhetoric, yet in practice turns out to be little more than a bunch of rhetoricall waffle that disintegrates like a soap bubble when logic and science are applied to it.

To start, perhaps it would help to point out that Anton Szandor LaVey's Church of Satan and his Satanic Bible was based on Ayn Rand's so-called philosophy... Hers is a blueprint for dystopia. It's most disturbing that many of our leaders have been poisoned by her madness. It's a philosophy by a psychopath for psychopaths and which, if applied totally, will lead to dystopia and the end of civilisation. This talk of people owning their lives and that only Rand appreciated that is absurd. If someone is born in a gutter, what kind of power do they have over their own life? None. Objectivists say that it's up to this person to pull him or herself out with no assistance whatsoever. This is a cruel social Darwinism that leads to crime, as anything goes for money and profit... I mean people complain about fraud and crime by the lower orders but who can blame them when their rulers set the example? Many of whom cite Rand's rantings as inspirations.

The various facets of the collectivist “argument” are represented well here by Harlequin, Barnes, and R. One claims that reason is beyond our (and presumably his) grasp. Another wants us to simply rely on his authority rather than thinking for ourselves. And the third warns of the Satanism, dystopia and the end of civilization that surely will result from a philosophy that recognizes an individual’s right to his own life. My advice is simply to read one of her books. She was not the only defender of freedom, but she was a great one.

By "freedom" it seems that Rational Infidel means women born to power lusting after impossibly perfect self-made men. Rand's "freedom" does not leave room for the natural social and family relationships that give meaning to human life. Research, (yes, actual facts, not romance novel prattling) shows that the happiness of most people varies in direct proportion to the quality of their social relationships. Reason is the greatest means of advancing knowledge, but the evolved empathy of the social species that we are is the foundation of morality. The world according to Rand is made only for the emotionally and socially disfunctional. The most telling fact, one that RI fails to address, is that Rand's so-called "philosophy" does not and cannot accommodate children. It's an obvious dead-end as a world view. As a bodice-ripper it's fair to middling.

Subjectivism is on full display. Up the thread a bit, Harlequin assures us that "man is not rational." Then, just above, we are told that "reason is the greatest means of advancing knowledge." (Got that one right, though apparently by accident.) Even better is the notion that morality is determined by "the evolved empathy of the social species." Such assertions could make one think that Rand was writing specifically for Harlequin.

How does nursing come into rational self-interest? Why would anyone choose to become a nurse if altruism is evil and rational self-interest is the only philosophical basis for morality? Why would I could become a nurse and work long hours mopping up other people's blood and urine and changing bandages when I could instead work as a bank clerk and keep office hours and get advantageous rates on financial products like pensions, insurance and mortgages? Why, indeed, would anyone become a nurse? How many of us would then die for want of nursing? If I chose to be a nurse out of self-interest, why shouldn't I then be free to choose who I sold my services to as a nurse? Perhaps I might choose not to nurse black people, or Muslims, or Christians, or Jews, or gays, because then I would be free to have my own life. Nobody could use force to make me nurse anyone I didn't want to nurse, because that would make me somebody else's slave. In fact, they could all die for all I care; because I don't care; after all, I'm not some kind of disgusting altruist!

I see that Rational Infidel believes in reason but not in facts. Seriously RI, you need to do some studying because you appear to know almost nothing about human nature. For good market based remedial instruction compare pre-Freud advertising to today's version. Read up on behavioral economics to see just how rational even market transactions really are. Real humans simply are not driven primarily by reason. Real humans also spend years as children totally dependent on other humans in relationships that are neither chosen nor optional but which are critical for normal psychological development. I know that romance novel aficionados like you are looking for an escape from reality, but you owe it to yourself to read a bit of non-fiction now and then. And yes, Rand could have written for Harlequin.

Nursing starting salaries are above the average for graduate salaries and progress at a faster rate. Some nurses earn over £100K a year, many earn over £50,000. Don't go on about nursing being a charity job.

What don't you understand about laissez-faire capitalism, Gordon? As far as nursing and healthcare, there would be no universal provision or entitlement to treatment. Doctors and nurses would not have to treat anyone who could not afford to pay for their services. According to Rand and her followers, it's not in my or your self-interest to provide a service to someone who isn't paying for it just because we have the skills to help and we feel sorry for them, and in any case, altruism is not a basis for moral action, and is in fact immoral. The truly moral stance, according to rational self-interest, is to let them die unless they can pay for their treatment. That's true freedom.

Good. But nursing is not a charity or altruistic job. Please forget that notion. It is a well-paid professional occupation.

But altruism underpins the idea of universal healthcare, the welfare state and the National Health Service, all of which are anathema to Rand's weird philosophy. A universalist system gives health care to people who need it, without presenting them with a bill or first checking their history of National Insurance contributions. That universalist principle is altruistic. In a civilised community we pool our resources and benefit from an economy of scale. In laissez-faire capitalism you get what you pay for, and the result is barbarism, as those who cannot generate sufficient income to provide for themselves resort to banditry or just starve to death.

I believe it is immoral for me to force others to pay for my food, health care, education or movie tickets. I believe that a desire or a need on my part does not give me license to steal from others or to force them to serve me. For that I am considered to be "barbaric." Notice also that Public Good purposely fails to mention charity, which is quite different from modern and immoral concept of "entitlement." In short, I wish to be neither master nor slave.

Rational Infidel and others don't seem to want to address the points which prove Rand's "philosophy" to be an overheated romance novel folly. First, why do the billions spent on advertising each year go much more into appeals to emotion rather than reason? Second, how does Rand's "philosophy" address the essential need of every human to be totally reliant upon others for years as a child? For good measure, you might want to address the severe psychological damage that afflicts people (and even chimps) who are denied motherly affection as an infant. Rand herself may have suffered a bit of this, since her mother described raising her as "a joyless duty". That would explain her rather sociopathic ideas, which will eventually wither and die when common sense prevails.

The Randsters displaying their morally superior selfishness here are proof that certain Americans can only synthesise ideas when they are presented in the sugar-coated simplicity of fiction (think about what fiction is, please!). The assumption that anyone disagreeing with them is a nasty Marxist is quite funny really, and indicates the sort of intolerance we could expect if their influence ever exceeds air guitar. Actually, it reminds me of Lenin, whose aphorism 'Who will beat whom' seems to come closest to the sentiments they have expressed here, and defined the economic and political struggles of the whole Soviet era.

Somehow Khruschev turns “I wish to be neither master nor slave” into “who will beat whom.” The deceit involved in this distortion will be obvious to the casual reader, whether steeped in Rand’s writings or not. And such deceit is required in order to rule over others, either directly or by proxy. So who will administer the “beatings”? Those who wish to control your life or those who do not?

Those who assert man is irrational by nature then dictate that we must be governed by that precept. Is it by accident that the havenots are the ones who seek to benefit from the labor of others? A lot of envy going on here.

Well, Frank, now you're getting to nub of the matter. The idea of 'freedom' espoused by Ayn Rand and her followers is freedom only for a small elite: the 'haves', with their inherited wealth, and individuals with exceptional talents. Everyone else is only free to starve and die. Of course it's the 'have nots' who want a more redistributive society; because individually they cannot earn enough to house themselves and their families, to educate their children, to defend themselves from criminals, and to pay for their treatment and care when they fall ill. It makes me laugh the way Rand's followers use 'Marxist' as an insult, when Marxist thought contains important truths regardless of whether you agree with Marx's political philosophy or not. Anyone who evaluates Marxist concepts instead of dismissing them as inherently evil must inevitably accept that the only reason you have rich people in the first place to pay taxes or demand the abolition of taxes is that they have got rich by exploiting the labour of others. You don't get rich just by building a textile mill. You get rich by building a textile mill and filling it with workers. You pay them less than the value they add to your product. You sell that product and cream off the surplus value. So it's okay for the 'haves' to benefit from the labour of others, but no-one else?

Public Good needs to understand basic economics. In a free market economy, an individual can obtain wealth only by providing value to his/her customers. Just because an individual builds a textile mill and fills it with workers does not mean that the individual will automatically earn profits. The individual, normally referred to as the entrepreneur, needs to be able to make a product that the market wants and more importantly, needs to be able to offer it at the price that the market wants to pay and still manage to make money at this price. If the textile mill filled with the workers churns out unappealing stuff at exhorbitant price, the entrepreneuer will quickly go bankrupt. So, successful entreprenuers are ones who are able to do this function of anticipation and responding to the potential opportunity better than the rest of the individuals in a society. Free market benefits everyone and not just the "haves with inherited wealth" or "small elite" or "individuals with exceptional talent". Look at the America of the 19th century and USSR in the 20th century. Which one benefitted more individuals? It's really silly that we continue to talk about this even after the Soviet Russia came crumbling down 20yrs back. Communism/Socialism/Facism and other forms of collectivism brings down the quaity of life to bare subsistence level for everyone except the ruling class. I suppose this is one way to ensure "equality".

Rothbardian, like all the other Rand enthusiasts, persists in making us choose between the USA and Soviet Russia, always ignoring Europe in their analysis. In the UK, we have a form of welfare capitalism whereby the rich get richer, the poor get poorer (because there is NOT room at the top for everyone), and yet we all pay our taxes to fund centralised provision of healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, an old age pension, roads, police forces and the armed services. Rothbardian, you say only the savvy entrepreneur makes a profit. What of that? Does it mean we should trample the corpse of the unsuccessful entrepreneur? No, it means the successful entrepreneur is the lucky one who'll be making enough profit to be be taxed on it, just as his employees will be taxed in turn on their earnings. And why not? So long as he can still buy a mansion, a Rolls Royce, expensive cigars and a retirement fund, the entrepreneur is doing well. The welfare state doesn't want to seize the entrepreneur's mill and his mansion. It just wants to make him pay for the roads his Rolls Royce runs on, the hospitals his workers end up in when they lose a limb in one of his machines, safety inspectors to reduce the likelihood of workers losing limbs in machines, and the education of the children who may or may not end up working in his mill, so that they have an alternative and some choice in the matter. If the employer exploits his workforce's labour power and pays for its upkeep, paying for the workers' welfare as well as their work, then all of society benefits, including the employer, who gets fitter, healthier, better skilled, more educated workers. The only thing reducing anybody's quality of life to bare subsistence level is the retrenchment of our welfare system. At least in the UK, unlike America, we don't have whole cities addicted to crystal meth. Many of Britain's current ills have their roots in the hard-nosed individualism promoted by Margaret Thatcher. You have to make hard choices about where you stand in relation to the poor. Either you help them to improve their lives, which may involve sharing what you have with them, or you spend an increasing proportion of your monetary and intellectual resources protecting yourself from them. The fact that America directs so much of its effort to building prisons suggests it has chosen the latter.

Public Good, and others of his ilk, don't want to work for a living. They simply want to demand one. And if one cares about the health and wealth of a nation or of all nations, then one would be an ardent advocate for capitalism. Observation demonstrates this fact.

Let's not sugar coat it, Public Good. What UK has is Socialism, which if left unchallenged, will head towards Communism. The reason, people often compare 19th century USA and the USSR is because they used to be on the extreme ends of political spectrum: Free market capitalism on one end and Communism on the other end of the spectrum. One has to choose one or the other. There is no middle ground. Free market knows how to allocate resources efficiently and that's why it works. Communism/Socialim does not work because a central planner or a planning commission cannot theoretically come up with a plan that will allocate resources as efficiently as free market. What results is wasted resources, starving people, long lines at bakeries for bread, milk, sugar and for all the essential needs. This was very well exemplified in Soviet Russia in the 80s. USSR used to be and still is a resource rich country and it took communism only 70yrs to bring down that country to starvation. Imagine how long communism would need to bring starvation to UK? Very little, I would imagine.

If this is the best the Randies can do, then they really are as intellectually bankrupt as they are morally. Note the paradox of imposed market freedom, Randies? Yes, let's force market freedom on people whether they want it or not, because WE know better. As for the appalling and inevitable triumph of communism in the UK, I suggests the Randsters start looking under the bed (that is where we Reds are, in case you didn't know).

Khruschev speaks of "imposed market freedom" and "forcing market freedom on people whether they want it or not." Could there be any stronger indications of an inability to think straight? (I'm guessing yes and they're sure to follow.)

"What the UK has is socialism." Oh dear. I'm sure Margaret Thatcher would be horrified to learn that she led a socialist country throughout the 1980s. Rothbardian, do you know how we got a Welfare State in Britain in the first place? The ruling class gave more and more welfare concessions to the workers over time (state pensions, health care, working hours regulations, safety at work regulations, pit-head baths for miners, paid holiday, public housing, education, etc.) partly because they feared a revolution. Revolution comes from an oppressed people with nothing to lose. Over the past hundred years our government has ensured the British people have too much to lose by overthrowing the state. Because of the Welfare State, the working class in the UK has been bought off, and they have no appetite for revolution at all these days. Combine the welfare safety net with a market economy in which private enterprise is celebrated and is seen to succeed, and you have a divided working class that aspires to personal, not collective, enrichment. The UK is not a socialist state, and you have no idea whatsoever just how far it is from Communism. In the 1980s Communism in the USSR represented the very nadir of wretchedness for most British people but was an inspiration to many others. Now, with the Soviet Union having collpased, and Britain's Labour Party having turned its back on the workers who created it, where does anyone imagine the impetus for Communism is going to come from? Not from any political party, nor from a Proletarian revolution. It can't come from nowhere.

I'm pleased to see that the free marketeers are demonstrating their ignorance so clearly.

What are you saying Hero? So socilalists are better or monopolies better.? What a smug opinion!