• 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
Have you read Rand?

Relying on one's own abilities is not the objection people who want strong societies are making against Rand. She was operating on a false premise. Humans are not just rational or irrational ... they are are also social animals.

Think Humanism v. Objectivism ... her story is justifying greed at all cost to others and making a case for selfishness. The stories Hubbard wrote or Rand wrote were simply stories written by megalomaniacs.

Much like Rand, I prefer a society of self-sufficient people as opposed to a society that would attempt to force self-sufficient people to bend to it's will for the purpose of conformity. In short, I find the "government" of Rand's novels to be much greedier that the independent people...with the added despicable actions of enacting stupid, short-sighted laws.
 
Rand is not merely talking about politics, but personal values as well. Minimal government to ensure the liberty of all people is ideal. But there is nothing laudable about selfishness. Selfishness is base and evil.

shrug...

You see someone working to satisfy their own self-interest as being selfish...I see them as being human.
 
shrug...

You see someone working to satisfy their own self-interest as being selfish...I see them as being human.

Quite the contrary, selfishness is animalistic. It is only in selflessness and sacrifice for others that one is truly human.
 
shrug...

You see someone working to satisfy their own self-interest as being selfish...I see them as being human.

THis sort of reminds me of a scene in ROAD WARRIOR where after Mel Gibson has fulfilled his promise to deliver a truck to the oil rig defenders he decides to leave. A defender calls him selfish and the leader of the group says no-HE IS AN HONORABLE MAN, he fulfilled his contract.

Its not selfish to "fulfill your contracts" and want to do nothing more. what is selfish is impose costs on others without their consent

and that is what the left does
 
Quite the contrary, selfishness is animalistic. It is only in selflessness and sacrifice for others that one is truly human.

LIke many other issues you are confused.

If I give to charity that is MY CHOICE. it is not charitable to demand someone give you something. and your claim I reject as your opinion which is just that-an opinion
 
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.

You seem to be confusing selfishness with rational self-interest.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be confusing selfishness with rational self-interest.

Hardly. That's precisely what you and Rand are doing: treating selfishness as if it is rational self interest, when it is merely the irrational, animalistic pursuit of one's own self interest.

Sacrificing for others definition of good. I agree with Rand on one thing, that a person is an end unto himself. Every person. It is this maxim from which all morality flows.

Morality is derived from reason, but not in the asinine selfishness Rand proposes. If one exists for one's own sake, one is merely an animal. It is rational only if one is wholly solipsistic, for it ignores the fact that other people have value; that everyone is an end, not a means. If one treats only oneself as the end, and all others as a means, one is defying reason, and living like an irrational animal.

If one exists for others, and holds others up as higher than himself, one is living the only truly rational way. For this recognizes the value of others, and deference is given to the status of all other moral agents as an end unto themselves. This is the golden rule. It is the only truly rational way to live, because it respects to logic of that fundamental maxim of morality: every man is an end unto himself.

This is the fallacy of Rand, raising up the irrational as rational, labeling selfishness as virtue, branding the inhuman as human. It's no wonder it appeals to so many sick and damaged minds.
 
Quite the contrary, selfishness is animalistic. It is only in selflessness and sacrifice for others that one is truly human.

Regardless your lofty opinions about people and how you WANT them to act...we are all, at root, animals and we will act accordingly. Tempered, of course, to some degree by society's influences.

I prefer those influences to be as minimal as possible. In other words, I will work with society, but only insofar as it conforms to my own self-interest. What I find most abhorrent...and Rand agrees with me here...is a government that will manipulate society and attempt to force me to live against my own self-interest. I find that to be akin to dictatorship.
 
we are all, at root, animals and we will act accordingly.

Insofar as Randians are concerned, I agree. But human beings have the potential to become more than mere animals, if they act selflessly and live for others, in accordance with reason.

I prefer those influences to be as minimal as possible. In other words, I will work with society, but only insofar as it conforms to my own self-interest. What I find most abhorrent...and Rand agrees with me here...is a government that will manipulate society and attempt to force me to live against my own self-interest. I find that to be akin to dictatorship.

This discussion has nothing to do with government, don't confuse the issue.
 
Last edited:
This is the fallacy of Rand, raising up the irrational as rational, labeling selfishness as virtue, branding the inhuman as human. It's no wonder it appeals to so many sick and damaged minds.

Machiavelli did it better. And, of course, Nietzsche. And Dostoyevsky.

But Anthem is not bad.
 
1. Insofar as Randians are concerned, I agree. But human beings have the potential to become more than mere animals, if they act selflessly and live for others, in accordance with reason.

2. This discussion has nothing to do with government, don't confuse the issue.

1. I find your desire for the potential you speak of to be quite laudable but short sighted. I also contend that forcing people to be what YOU want them to be is selfish in it's own right.

2. In respect to "Atlas Shrugged", at least, the government had everything to do with the issue of the novel...that is, people's desire to live to their own desires and self-sufficiency and other's use of government to bend them to THEIR own selfish desires.
 
Machiavelli did it better. And, of course, Nietzsche. And Dostoyevsky.

But Anthem is not bad.

I agree, Anthem is a fun read. I can't really find fault with Rand as a novelist.
 
I found her tedious and generally didn't finish. Anthem is short. Like Trotsky (and Hubbard), her short stuff was the best for me.
 
Last edited:
1. I find your desire for the potential you speak of to be quite laudable but short sighted. I also contend that forcing people to be what YOU want them to be is selfish in it's own right.

Well, I really think we are nearing agreement, now. I agree with you that nobody should be forced to behave in any particular way, people have a fundamental right to be selfish and animalistic. I would never condone, for example, forcing somebody to give to charity.

2. In respect to "Atlas Shrugged", at least, the government had everything to do with the issue of the novel...that is, people's desire to live to their own desires and self-sufficiency and other's use of government to bend them to THEIR own selfish desires.

I understand that, and the reason I say that government is not the issue is because I agree with much of Rand's views on government. It is coincidental, of course. Her laissez-faire politics come from a principle of selfishness. My own libertarian political views come from my morals; I think laissez-faire capitalism and minimal government are the golden rule as applied to politics. If every man is an end unto himself, the initiation of coercive force cannot be justified. People have a right to make their own mistakes.

I am a fairly orthodox libertarian, but I abhor selfishness. "Libertarian" does not mean "libertine."
 
Last edited:
Hardly. That's precisely what you and Rand are doing: treating selfishness as if it is rational self interest, when it is merely the irrational, animalistic pursuit of one's own self interest.

Again, you seem to be confusing self-interest with selfishness. Whose responsibility is it to insure that you succeed? Society's, or your own? Self-interest is not irrational. Believing that you have the responsibility to sacrifice yourself, or have others sacrifice themselves for you, is irrational.

Sacrificing for others definition of good. I agree with Rand on one thing, that a person is an end unto himself. Every person. It is this maxim from which all morality flows.

It may be your own definition of good, but good and bad are relative terms, and are agreed to by majority consent, and nothing else. My definition is that the concept of good implies that I cause no harm to others by my actions. My definition of bad implies that I actively cause harm. Inaction does not cause harm.

Morality is derived from reason, but not in the asinine selfishness Rand proposes. If one exists for one's own sake, one is merely an animal. It is rational only if one is wholly solipsistic, for it ignores the fact that other people have value; that everyone is an end, not a means. If one treats only oneself as the end, and all others as a means, one is defying reason, and living like an irrational animal.

Morality is derived from majority consent, and exists in order to maintain control. I can see where your misunderstanding of Rand's concepts is in error. You are assuming that one can only treat oneself as an end by using others, which is not the case at all, and is apparent in the initial quote from Rand that I cited.

If one exists for others, and holds others up as higher than himself, one is living the only truly rational way.

No, that is irrational. Self-sacrifice is not rational as a basis for living. It may make you feel good, but it denies your own worth, which is not less than that of anyone else.
 
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.


Interesting connection. I think you are on to something. Both authors wrote in ways that glossed over the logical problems in their proposed ideologies, and lead people to over-estimate the plausibility of the systems involved.
 
Again, you seem to be confusing self-interest with selfishness. Whose responsibility is it to insure that you succeed? Society's, or your own? Self-interest is not irrational. Believing that you have the responsibility to sacrifice yourself, or have others sacrifice themselves for you, is irrational.
Lizzie, you're getting lost in your own convoluted argument. Every man is an end unto himself. To act selfishly is to treat oneself as the only end and to treat all others as a means, which is to act in contradiction of the maxim that every man is an end unto himself. It is thus irrational to behave selfishly. Self sacrifice for others is the rational outcome of the belief that all people are ends into themselves.


It may be your own definition of good, but good and bad are relative terms, and are agreed to by majority consent, and nothing else. My definition is that the concept of good implies that I cause no harm to others by my actions. My definition of bad implies that I actively cause harm. Inaction does not cause harm.
Funny hearing a self-described "objectivist" arguing that morality is relative. You do realize that this undercuts your entire argument, don't you?


Morality is derived from majority consent, and exists in order to maintain control. I can see where your misunderstanding of Rand's concepts is in error. You are assuming that one can only treat oneself as an end by using others, which is not the case at all, and is apparent in the initial quote from Rand that I cited.
If you do not value selfless sacrifice for the same of others, then you do not value treating others as an end unto themselves, because one necessarily follows from the other. Self interested actions may be a right under the law, but helping oneself at the expense of others is, by definition, treating others as a means to a selfish end.
No, that is irrational. Self-sacrifice is not rational as a basis for living. It may make you feel good, but it denies your own worth, which is not less than that of anyone else.
Self sacrifice is necessary as an acknowledgement of the worth of others. Randianism is utterly incoherent unless it is based on the solipsistic belief that only ones self exists, others if a Randianism acknowledges tha others exist and are to be treates as ends unto themselves, it is irrational to treat them as means to self interested ends. Rand fails on the most elementary principles of logic.
 
Interesting connection. I think you are on to something. Both authors wrote in ways that glossed over the logical problems in their proposed ideologies, and lead people to over-estimate the plausibility of the systems involved.

You can say the same thing about Karl Marx. You can say the same thing about Jesus.
To the extent that there is a "connection" it is trivial.
 
Last edited:
Marx, yes, Jesus no. Jesus didn't write any part of the bible. I would say it about Paul, Mark, Luke, John, et al., though.

The "red letters" are the Jesus words. He did have a hand in it, you know.

And you are frankly wrong in your assessment of Scientology. Hubbard never "glossed over" anything.

They have nothing to do with each other. One is the founder of a philosophy, the other is the prophet of religion. When a person bashes Hubbard and Scientology, it is no better than the ignorant, hateful people who bash Muhammed and Islam.

You see an "interesting connection" where the only connection is you prejudice against these two completely disparate things. The only connection is that you happen to not like them.
 
Last edited:
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?
But it's not about uneven distribution, it's about not distributing enough to people with talent. The wage gap that I am most against is the typical distribution where an inventor got a $30,000 bonus and his corporate Masters got $300,000,000 for the patent that wouldn't have existed without him. Just like the workers, the investors were only secondary factors in creating that wealth. The Investor Inferiority objective of homo erectus is achieved if this point is ignored and opposition to Rand is only focused on giving lower-class moochers more of the wealth created by homo sapiens.
 
Much like Rand, I prefer a society of self-sufficient people as opposed to a society that would attempt to force self-sufficient people to bend to it's will for the purpose of conformity. In short, I find the "government" of Rand's novels to be much greedier that the independent people...with the added despicable actions of enacting stupid, short-sighted laws.
How can you advocate "do it on your own" and still accept unearned and dependent birth privileges such as inheritance, trust funds, and living off a large allowance in college? As with many cults, saying they support something allows them to define what is included in that slogan, even if contradicting it. The capitalists are also totally dependent on their workers, especially the inventive workers. They are a parasitic private government that Rand wants us to be believe we are dependent upon and therefore must conform to all its self-indulgent demands. Claiming that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.
 
Back
Top Bottom