My friend thinks Ayn Rand is a genius. How do I save them?

Average runnerrr wrote:

Right wingers rally behind her without knowing or obscuring the fact that she was a strong atheist. She was a right winger when it comes to government. She believed in a small government etc... But she belived that no government should pass a law that would take away the freedom of individuals for example banning abortion, gay marriage etc all the things that right winger hate. It's funny how right wingers fight for their "freedom" but rally behind the government when they want things like gay marriage and ban in abortion. Ayn Rand believed that we could not do that. Someone asked her during a discussion what did she think about homosexuality and she said she was personally "disgusted" but she hated the fact that people would take away someone's freedom.

All true, but it doesn't address whether or not you think she's correct... just because many of her more ardent followers are hypocrites on the social issues doesn't mean their other beliefs are wrong... using the hypocrisy of the other side regarding a separate domain to attack an argument is a classic fallacy of logic.

"Saving" someone from thinking so-and-so is a genius is a really suspect way of thinking about it. Everyone has had a dubious intellectual crush at some point. Maybe for your friend, it's Rand. Or maybe not. I've never read Rand, but if it is so true that she is not of "genius" status, your friend will probably come to that conclusion over time, due to further reading and experience. There is no magic argument or prescribed reading. If it's so obvious, you should be able to argue for it persuasively.

I did hear of a new book on the history of Ayn Rand idolization. Its author was on The Daily Show last week, but I forget her name.

I'm not sure which is more irritating--sophomores who read Atlas Shrugged and think, "Dude, that would be awesome," or smug pseudo-intellectuals who flatter themselves that they are too smart to read it. 3 points: first, it's a work of fiction (and not a very well-written one). Second, the thing that is applicable to today's real world is not the "strike" of the productive, but rather the perverse role of government and collectivism. And finally, Rand and her "objectivists" were pretty much drummed out of the modern conservative movement by people like Buckley, around the same time the Birchers were.

There always seems to be some high school kid calling Hitler a socialist. As they obviously seem averse to the idea of actual reading, I will briefly fill you in. Hitler was in many ways inspired by the fascist movement in Italy led by Benito Mussolini, and Mussolini was (for various political reasons that I will not go into) far more clear in his initial ideological rhetoric, and therefore it is much easier to get to the core of the fascist movement by analyzing Mussolini. Mussolini championed an extreme form of nationalism and what he referred to as "super capitalismo." Corporations thrived in fascist Italy as they have not before or since, and the same was true of Nazi Germany. Hitler, of course, is famous for referring to communism as a "Jewish plot," and this was one of the reasons he had no intention of cooperating with Stalin. I suspect that you know all of these things, as I have only brought up topical evidence, but for some reason or other people still insist on calling Hitler a socialist. I am myself a conservative and I think socialism is a bankrupt philosophy, but in the spirit of intellectual honesty I cannot stand by and listen to such drivel.

The conservative movement is currently in desperate need of another William F Buckley to right the ship and send Palin et al back to the woods.

That's all well and good, but look at what he DID. He nationalized damned near everything, had huge social welfare structures in place, etc. How is that not socialist in nature?

cert wrote:

Mussolini championed an extreme form of nationalism and what he referred to as "super capitalismo." Corporations thrived in fascist Italy as they have not before or since, and the same was true of Nazi Germany.

Calling it capitalism doesn't make it capitalism.

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it."

Whether the control is direct or indirect doesn't matter it's still socialism, and most definitely NOT capitalism. Businesses in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany may have been freer than those in the Soviet Union, but they weren't free like (most) of those in the US or UK. Fascism is a left wing ideology.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Fascism is a left wing ideology.

Fascism is comprised of the worst elements of BOTH right wing AND left wing philosophy. Sadly, they're the elements that the modern right and left wingers of the base seem to cling to most fervently.

I would just agree with the guy who said that it would be wise to read some additional books, some that were NOT written by Ayn Rand. Oh wait, that guy was me.

Templar21 wrote:

Haha! i knew i would get this from someone. It is an emphasis on the wrong word that people where able to get a distorted view on this (because, people just nip the surface when reading history because it is too boring to dive into it). It is the NATIONAL socialist pary. Virtually all the things that Hitler did he did through a nationalist corporatist ideology. Putting a word in a name means nothing, if it did, then why do all those guerrilla african/south american terrorist groups seem to kill everybody....

Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance!

Do us all a favor and keep your head buried up your butt so your mouth stays as closed as your mind.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Fascism is a form of Socialism .

That's nonsense. Just because governments that embraced fascist or socialist concepts were, in practice, similar in many ways, doesn't make "fascism a form of socialism." There are many distinct differences between the ideologies and and even in practice there were many differences between so-called fascist and socialist nations. Sure it is easy to argue about where exactly fascism falls on the political spectrum, but to argue that fascism is a type of socialistic ideology is rather silly to me.

If you are going to play that game, you might as well say "socialism is a form of fascism." But of course you'd prefer to term it the other way because let's face it, EVERYthing evil (including Obama, fascists, and I guess Hitler too then) is/was socialist in nature, correct?

Socialism, the ultimate bogeyman of republicans.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Fascism is a form of Socialism .

That's nonsense. Just because governments that embraced fascist or socialist concepts were, in practice, similar in many ways, doesn't make "fascism a form of socialism." There are many distinct differences between the ideologies and and even in practice there were many differences between so-called fascist and socialist nations. Sure it is easy to argue about where exactly fascism falls on the political spectrum, but to argue that fascism is a type of socialistic ideology is rather silly to me.

If you are going to play that game, you might as well say "socialism is a form of fascism." But of course you'd prefer to term it the other way because let's face it, EVERYthing evil (including Obama, fascists, and I guess Hitler too then) is/was socialist in nature, correct?

Socialism, the ultimate bogeyman of republicans.

Fascism is to a rectangle as Socialism is to a square.

Socialism may be the bogeyman of the Republicans, but fascism is a real threat to ALL societies that claim to promote personal and social freedom.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

And I mean that sincerely

Ayn Rand is a genius and the greatest philosopher of all time. Recent events have sparked a renewed interest in her ideas and people are starting to think in philosophic terms rather than pragmatic ones. Her ideas are a long way from gaining widespread acceptance, but we are witnessing what may be the beginnings of an intellectual revolution.

Realize that every decision you ever make in life is guided, knowingly or unknowingly, by your philosophical orientation. Everyone has a philosophy; you need one to exist. It's inescapable. Your only choice is whether to assimilate good ideas or bad ones. Your choice of philosophy will determine whether you become successful, happy and healthy or mediocre, complacent, and fat. Will you derive happiness from productive achievement, or will you rely on anti-depressant medication to get through your days? Think carefully before you ridicule her ideas; you do so at your own great loss.

Not one person in this thread so far has even attempted to provide an actual refutation of her philosophy. People talk a lot of shit, but when it comes down to it, nobody can use logic to prove her wrong. I dare any of you to try.

Seriously, we're having this discussion?

Don't get me wrong. Even as a liberal I like the self-reliance element that Rand pushed. Personal liberties? Pile em' on! But, if you think for a second that caring for others based on altruistic motives, or that all collective decisions are evil, then you're just plain ignorant.

Societies often thrive precisely to the degree they can work in everyone's interest but that dosen't mean that has to be the *actual* motive.

Self-interest is a slippery thing. To define working as a group... or caring for the weak... in moral instances as an act of self-interest... well, the only people who it appeals to are:

1) Unmarried men.

2) Psychopaths.

3) Those who don't want kids.

4) Etc...

I exaggerate, but you get the idea.

Altruism doesn't mean caring for others. It means that an individual has no right to his own life, property, or happiness, that he is the property of society, and that his only moral purpose is to serve others selflessly. If he refuses to serve others, he deprives them of what is rightfully theirs, and must therefore be forcefully compelled to serve. It does not mean goodwill toward your fellow man or helping people whose welfare you care about. It means an absolute obligation to serve others, anyone, whether you care about them or not, with absolutely nothing in return, for no other reason than that the people you must serve are weak/poor/incompetent. In essence, alturism vilifies the strong for being strong and glorifies the weak for being weak. It says that weakness is better than strength, that poor people are morally superior to rich people, that sick people are morally superior to healthy people, etc. The more defects and character flaws you have, the better you are, according to altruism.

There is no such thing as a collective decision. Society is a non-entity. It has no consciousness, intelligence, or will. Only individual men can make decisions. The notion of a collective decision is the fraudulent claim of a group of parasitic theives voting on whose money to steal and how to split it up amongst themselves. As Benjamin Franklin said, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what to have for dinner."

Hugh Akston wrote:Altruism doesn't mean caring for others. It means that an individual has no right to his own life, property, or happiness, that he is the property of society, and that his only moral purpose is to serve others selflessly.

There's a term for your entire argument. And Rands. It's called a "straw man."

Also note that I *never* said that people should always be altruistic in the raw sense of the term. I only said that there are some instances they should be. Finally, there's nothing about being altruistic that makes someone weak. It just means that someone is willing to focus on another's needs while disregarding their own.

Perfect example: raising a child.

Sometimes putting yourself aside when making a choice works best for everyone. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Your conceptions of "rights" aren't rights at all. All you want is a license to do what you want.

Mr. Price wrote:

There's a term for your entire argument. And Rands. It's called a "straw man."

Also note that I *never* said that people should always be altruistic in the raw sense of the term. I only said that there are some instances they should be. Finally, there's nothing about being altruistic that makes someone weak. It just means that someone is willing to focus on another's needs while disregarding their own.

Perfect example: raising a child.

Sometimes putting yourself aside when making a choice works best for everyone. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Your conceptions of "rights" aren't rights at all. All you want is a license to do what you want.

You do not understand the nature of altruism. It is not context-dependent. It is a universal moral code which insists that, under all circumstances, an individual is obligated to sacrifice his own well-being for the benefit of others. It declares that an act is only virtuous if someone else is the beneficiary, and if the individual who performs the act does not benefit from it in any way. It is either universally true or false, not good in some circumstances while arbitrarily less good in others.

Raising a child is not altruistic--or at least, it shouldn't be. A good parent derives selfish pleasure from watching his child grow and flourish, and recieves the child's love as payment. Altruism would be supporting someone else's kid whom you don't like and don't care about, and who shows no appreciation in return.

The most altruistic society in history was Nazi Germany. One of the two cornerstones of their ideology, the other being racism, was that Germans should forfeit all individual interests for the benefit of the group. The rise of Nazism was a direct result of the influence of altruist philosophers, particularly Kant and Hagel.

Hugh Akston wrote:

Hagel.

*Hegel