• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

Agree of Disagree ...discuss?


  • Total voters
    52

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ayn Rand simply created a fictitious political ideology of selfishness to create a story around it.

L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional religion to sell.

Both were delusional and narcisisisitic and it is revealed in their writing imo.
 
Last edited:
Ayn Rand simply created a fictitious political ideology of selfishness to create a story around it.

L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional religion to sell.

Both were delusional and narcisisisitic and it is revealed in their writing imo.

I really don't know if such an insult should be thrown at L. Ron Hubbard...
 
Ayn Rand simply created a fictitious political ideology of selfishness to create a story around it.

L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional religion to sell.

Both were delusional and narcisisisitic and it is revealed in their writing imo.

I don't know much about L.Ron Hubbard, except he wrote a decent sci-fi novel that got made into a crappy movie.

In regards to Ayn Rand...the proper word is "self-sufficiency"...not selfishness.
 
Ayn Rand simply created a fictitious political ideology of selfishness to create a story around it.

L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional religion to sell.

Both were delusional and narcisisisitic and it is revealed in their writing imo.

I don't know if Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of politics, but while reading Atlas Shrugged I'm sure I couldn't have been the only one who heard The Merry Old Land of Oz in his head after getting to the chapter with the utopian capitalist society.
 
Last edited:
There are socialists who compare (not sure about fiction), even contemporary. I enjoyed Anthem in HS. He got the chick and a library, what's not to like?
 
Last edited:
I don't know if Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of politics, but while reading Atlas Shrugged I'm sure I couldn't have been the only one who heard The Merry Old Land of Oz in his head after getting to the chapter with the utopian capitalist society.

I hear that as I read many posts on DP.
 
I've only read excerpts from Rand's works, but Hubbard's effects can be seen fairly easily even without reading his novels.

I think the comparison is a bit of exaggeration.

To me it's kind of like saying the Sikh temple shooter is the Hitler of anti-Indian sentiment.

(Yeah, I just Godwinned.)
 
I've only read excerpts from Rand's works

Anthem is only 100 pages, it's a nice story and qualifies one as having "read Rand" without the typical suffering involved. Instead of her more tedious work (get it?), then read The Prince and I think you've got it covered.
 
Last edited:
Other - You're on to something, but not quite there.
 
They were also both science fiction writers, bad science fiction writers, although I liked Battlefield Earth movie a little. :3oops: But one good book out of many doesn't excuse the crapicity of the rest.
 
I've read her books, horrible things.
 
Both are writers of fiction and I have heard it argued, rather persuasively, that Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has become more of a quasi-religion than a philosophy. Although I enjoyed all of her novels, it was her re-introduction of Aristotle's philosophy that got my attention. After centuries of nonsense philosophy from the likes of Descarte, Hume, Hegel, Locke, and especially Kant, Rand was a breath of fresh air. Her analysis of knowledge - how we know what we know - and her explication of concept formation, were crystal clear, thorough and valuable - as a re-introduction of Classical Philosophy. I don't know if she actually contributed anything new but I applaud her effort.

Sadly, however, I have yet find a logical connection to her epistemology (study of knowledge) and her morality. She quite explicitly stated, in her novels and her nonfiction works, that Man is the Standard of Value. She also says, therefore, that man should have the freedom to do as he pleases. Of course, if man didn't live in a society, with the implicit social contract that goes with it, perhaps it might be acceptable for man do do what is right for him. Not so in a society. Especially in a Democratic society. But this is a topic for another conversation. It is however, relevant to the comparison with L. Ron Hubbard, who also created a quasi-religion - but without any philosophical underpinnings. Indeed, with no basis in reality. This, I think, is the real difference between them.
 
I can't criticize Rand because I never really read her writing. But I will say that her followers are the most annoying people on the entire planet.
 
I can't criticize Rand because I never really read her writing. But I will say that her followers are the most annoying people on the entire planet.

types_of_libertarian1.png
 
Rand believed in Investor Supremacy and Inventor Inferiority. But investment is static, invention is dynamic. Typical of religious-cult figures, she pretends to be just the opposite when Galt embezzles his own invention. But that was only because the heirs of the corporate moochers wanted to institute socialism; if they had wanted to waste all the money they made off a sucker like Galt on self-indulgent luxury, he never would have asserted the right to his own property that they stole from him based on an unbalanced employment contract. By claiming that everything good coming from scientists actually came from people with money, Rand and her ilk have created 50 years of mooching by the rich at the expense of the humiliated and exploited intelligent, who created all their wealth in the first place and must take it back, especially from the heirs, who did absolutely nothing for it.
 
Rand and her ilk have created 50 years of mooching by the rich

Agreed. Milton Freedman (not an Objectivist, as far as I know, but with similar ideas); Alan Greenspan, Paul Ryan, among others, but epecially - Ronald Reagan (also not truly an Objectivist) who, with is erroneous characterization of the "welfare queen" did more to damage our country than any other single person. With this one statement, many of the ideals of our Founding Fathers, especially the ideal of General Welfare, have been seriously damaged. The theme continues with many of today's Republicans. The wage-gap, that is, the theft of the income of the working 99% by the wealthy and, especially, by the corporations, is only one symptom. Capitalism does work, but primarily for the 1%. Don't misunderstand - I beleive in the American Dream - that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed. But wouldn't it be nice if everyone played by the same rules? Wouldn't it be nice if the 'game' weren't rigged for the corporations?
 
Last edited:
I will say in Ayn Rand's defense, that the bulk of The Fountainhead is very well written, a very compelling story about an architect believing in his vision.

L Rom Hubbar was a 3rd rate sci-fi hack and a criminal.
 
In regards to Ayn Rand...the proper word is "self-sufficiency"...not selfishness.

No, it's not. Selfishness is the only applicable word. Self sufficiency has nothing to do with it, as Randians are perfectly content to benefit from others. A Randian is merely selfish, with all the base and ugly things that that words connotes.

Comparing Hubbard with Rand is an insult to Scientology.
 
Last edited:
Comparing Hubbard with Rand is an insult to Scientology.

No, Scientology is an insult to Hubbard. At least he wrote a couple of decent books before he ran off to make his fortune on the backs of the gullible.
 
No, Scientology is an insult to Hubbard. At least he wrote a couple of decent books before he ran off to make his fortune on the backs of the gullible.

This is a non sequitur.
 
Just saying it would be better to be remembered as an author than as a scam artist.

Scientology is a religion. Calling it a "scam" is no different than calling Catholicism a "scam." It's an insult to the good people who practice that religion.
 
I don't know much about L.Ron Hubbard, except he wrote a decent sci-fi novel that got made into a crappy movie.

In regards to Ayn Rand...the proper word is "self-sufficiency"...not selfishness.

Decent?

Imo, it was a 1000+ page rambling, nonsensical, bore fest.

The movie was beyond horrific.

And Scientology is a joke beyond compare.

L.Ron Hubbard was a brilliant, emotionally disturbed, vindictive whackjob.
 
Back
Top Bottom