Answering anti-Randian, anti-Objectivist scum

One way to answer someone who says something like…

“Not one supporter of the objectivist philosophy ever has shown the least inclination to actually put Rand’s “philosophy” into practice, and this tells us pretty much all we need to know about how realistic her thought is.”

My response below. And at the bottom I explain MY selfish reasons for wasting minutes of my life engaging such people for whom the state would execute if it had, and decided to enforce, a zero-tolerance policy against the incompetent class.

You fail to realize that someone who puts Rand’s philosophy into practice would not likely be within your view… taking advantage of YOUR “roads.” They may be living in a cabin in the woods… they may be working late nights in a lab somewhere trying to cure cancer… they may be building the very roads you talk about… or they may be in a Turkish hotel tickling virgins… but they certainly aren’t driving on main street with an “I Heart Rand” bumper sticker on the back of their green mini van, and for goodness sakes, they CERTAINLY are not hanging around with people like you.

You make generalizations without utilizing logic to connect various points, and even my society-loving high school lit teacher knew enough to advise me against this practice. It’s just an ignorant thing to do… and it is case in point why many (though clearly too few) people find themselves fearful and frustrated by the ignorance of people like you, and the masses at large.

There is one thing we might agree with. I think the idea of having objectivist associations, groups, and societies is silly. A mature objectivist has seen the failings of “others” far too often to allow anyone else to carry their torch, but everyone gets weak at one time or another… and in times of weakness… human beings tend to join groups to remind themselves that they are not alone.

A glaring difference between a “true” objectivist who produces for themselves… and a self-proclaimed altruist who “produces for others,” is that one of these individuals is “brash” when they answer the question… why (why do I live, why do I live my life the way I do)… and the other is either dishonest or lacking of self knowledge.

When I write this post, I write it for myself. I know I will not convince you of anything, and that your response will include the kind of silly points you’re fond of making. I write this post because when I encounter people such as yourself, I walk away more energized than before, motivated to continue creating the innovations that silly saps like you will take for granted 100 years from now.

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. Mike
    Posted January 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    I’ve seen your ads on Facebook. You know the ones which claim that ‘everyone is doing it’. (Collectivism much?)

    Anyway, I can’t understand how you buy the idea that Rand could possibly have been an Objectivist considering she entertained an elitist cult (consisting of Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and a few others). To make matters worse, after posting Murray Rothbard’s “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html), my friend insisted that Ayn Rand was a Goddess, which I found most amusing of all.

    The Austrian School has far more to offer in the way of individualism than Rand’s proto-fascism.

  2. reasonmrsmith
    Posted January 12, 2008 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Ayn Rand has value to me inasmuch as she has put to words a philosophy that has guided me from a very young age, and has helped me to explore my personal philosophy in greater depth. I don’t know that she “entertained” an elitist cult of anyone, and frankly I don’t care. Ayn Rand is not my hero, but she is an individual who articulated a powerful philosophy and earns my respect for that.

    Objectivism versus Austrian School versus anything else… who cares? This is not a competition. I would never label myself with a single word or phrase… objectivist, Austrian, or otherwise. I’ll leave the labels for the bourgeoisie. But for someone to attack Rand, or objectivism, utilizing reason that does not fall on solid ground – well, I feel I need to address that – for my own purposes.

  3. Mike
    Posted January 28, 2008 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    I have two main objections with objectivism:

    First, and probably the most important: Rand falls right into the is-ought problem. She derives an individualist philosophy, and that’s all fine. I’m for that. But she then takes it a step further and derives a morality from that, stating that one should not do something unless there is a personal gain. I don’t know if it’s true of objectivism or just some of the moron objectivists I encounter, but they all seem to scoff at the idea of charity, considering it somehow reprehensible.

    Second, and probably less important in the scheme of things: Objectivism, like most forms of government, falls into the trap of proto-fascism. Unlike soft socialism, which usually runs into problems of complex governmental entanglements which often can’t develop into any kind of hardcore USSR-style fascism, objectivism, by eliminating the restrictions on business but leaving in place the governing structure (that is, the legitimized mafia), allows a clear pathway for corruption, and thus, complete domination of the market by whatever business can buy out the government first. The problem with politics is not its economic restrictions (though those are very much a problem), but the infallibility of the government, and the ability for businesses to ride it’s coattails.

    I’ll turn you ana-cap yet!

  4. reasonmrsmith
    Posted February 10, 2008 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    Mike, to be clear, objectivism is not “against” charity per se. Ayn Rand felt that it was ok for people to be charitable. Rand had an issue with people who made it the primary objective of their lives (for one because she doesn’t trust these people), however, and had a problem with government playing a role in charity because she believed that no third-party had a right to put their hands into the pocket of one individual for the benefit of another individual. Ayn Rand believed that charity should be a private matter. I don’t see how any rational thinker could disagree with Ayn Rand on this point. The world is cold, hard, and crewel, but what right does society have to ride on the backs of creators-of-value by taxing them and giving away their money? It’s not my fault your child is handicapped. If I want to buy a wheel-chair for them than that would be a nice thing… but who are you to FORCE me to buy a wheel chair for your crippled child?

  5. Soraya Mazloomi
    Posted May 15, 2008 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    I agree with reasonmrsmith on the interpretation of Rand. The people you have encountered who scoff at charity are making her philosophy ugly and crude. Charity SHOULD be for personal gain… which is what it does in essence. When you give charity it makes you feel good right? Because you are doing it to benefit others, which personally benefits you mentally and spiritually. Anyone who gives under duress is deprived of that joy, and becomes resentful of the whole system of charity, which isn’t healthy for anyone.

    Think how many people in your life you have encountered who are bitter about the welfare system… I bet they weren’t Rand supporters… yet in nature they are forced through their tax dollars to support a program which rewards a majority of unworthy, completely capable people… but I am sure if it were up to them and they had the ability to provide a little money for a daycare that would help mother’s be able to get jobs and support their families themselves, then they would most likely be for it. It’s all about choice, and when you are robbed of that choice, thats when problems start.

  6. Julius B. Young
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    (To paraphrase an Ayrshire plowman)
    Ye Objectivists by name, lend an ear, lend an ear…
    Yer fauts I maun proclaim, yer “doctrines” I maun blame…
    By the law, by the law…

    Just be nice to people. Whatever creed you hold to, respect common dignity, for it is mine and your own. Don’t live like a thief, ’cause then you’re robbing yourself thousandfold. Treasure that precious thing that all that pomp and deceit cannot rob you of: your humanity – OUR humanity. A Man’s A Man For A’ That. The end.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: