[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
People would deal with one another in full honesty, giving the best that they had to offer in expectation that they would receive the same. If not, they would simply refuse to deal with that person in the future. Graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be quickly weeded out in a true survival of the fittest. [/quote]
No, the opposite would be true - graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be weeded in - not out - because these are the characteristics that would bring about success the most quickly in this cutthroat world. The “fittest” would be the ones who were the best at accomplishing these unseemly behaviors, not the other way around.
Your statement is the height of naivete - and fairly stated, the Randian philosophy is exactly that: an expression of naivete and gullibility. This dog-eat-dog world of Randian fantasies wouldn’t cultivate virtue - it would reward some basest instincts of savage Man.
Virtue requires self-restraint and is based on a code of Good Behavior that is intrinsically good, even if it causes you to lose out on a buck or two. The Randian world wouldn’t encourage virtue - it punishes it and mocks it as being weak.
The more I hear libertarians talk, the more I am absolutely shocked in their real belief that if we could just cast off [insert human institution - religion, government, moral custom], Humans would set aside their savage nature and find their way to millenia of peaceful and fulfilling happiness. Randian philosophy teaches this foolish theory, and it deserves to be cast in the dustbin of history along with other discredited theories guaranteeing utopia.[/quote]
I can now state is plainly and without doubt. You have NEVER read the book. You have overplayed your hand. You have read critiques and criticisms but not the book.
Inferring that Ayn Rand was a libertarian? I expect more from you. I will let you hear it from the horses mouth:
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: â??The Moratorium on Brains,â?? 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves â??libertarians,â?? especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that theyâ??re 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. Itâ??s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but donâ??t 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. Thatâ??s the Libertarian movement.
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: â??A Nationâ??s Unity,â?? 1972]
AR: Iâ??d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I donâ??t think theyâ??re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt heâ??ll do), it would be a moral crime. I donâ??t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But donâ??t run for Presidentâ??or even dogcatcherâ??if youâ??re going to help McGovern.
Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: â??Censorship: Local and Express,â?? 1973]
AR: I donâ??t want to waste too much time on it. Itâ??s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians wonâ??t get. Todayâ??s 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 ideasâ??I wonâ??t say from whomâ??is irresponsible, and in todayâ??s context, nearly immoral.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: â??Egalitarianism and Inflation,â?? 1974]
AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. Theyâ??re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which canâ??t 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 itâ??s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: â???â?? 1976]
AR: My answer should be, â??I havenâ??t.â?? Thereâ??s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact oppositeâ??with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can findâ??and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; Iâ??m 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.
Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LPâ??s â??Objective Communication,â?? Lecture 1, 1980]
AR: I donâ??t think plagiarists are effective. Iâ??ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasnâ??t my ideas badly mishandledâ??i.e., had the teeth pulled out of themâ??with no credit given. I didnâ??t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.
Q: Why donâ??t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: â??The Age of Mediocrity,â?? 1981]
AR: 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. Theyâ??d like to have an amoral political program.
Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why donâ??t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]
AR: Please donâ??t tell me theyâ??re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. Thatâ??s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, â??The end justifies the means.â?? That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians arenâ??t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.
To be clear, I will continue listen to your views on the constitution and the founding fathers intent, however you have no fucking clue as to the beliefs and teachings of Ayn Rand.[/quote]
All you’ve done here is display her feelings about the Libertarian Party and not libertarianism. It’s becoming painfully obvious that you are infatuated with Rand and anyone who has an opinion about her that differs from your own must, in your opinion, have not read the book at all. After all, it’s impossible to arrive at a different conclusion than you and be right, right?
None of the quotes you have provided above do anything to further Rand from the pie-in-the-sky Libertarians with too much faith in humanity’s innate morality. Likening these quotes to evidence that Rand was not libertarian is like holding up a critique of the Democratic or Republican Party as a denouncement of democracy or republicanism. In fact, in one of those interviews she openly says that the LP is stealing her ideas and plagiarizing her philosophy. In other words, she IS a libertarian, she’s just not a Libertarian Party supporter. There’s nothing to infer; she said herself that she is libertarian. It’s becoming painfully obvious that you either know nothing about libertarianism or nothing about Rand.