Posted on 05/14/2014 6:33:32 PM PDT by OddLane
Ayn Rand, the famous novelist and free market advocate, is often caricatured as a defender of the rich or big business. But, as Steve Horwitz explains at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian blog, there are more wealthy villains in her books than wealthy heroes. And many of her heroes – including John Galt, whom Rand portrayed as the person best exemplifying her philosophy – are not particularly wealthy. Ultimately, Rand’s work praises producers, not wealthy people as such: One of the other valuable pieces of Rand’s work is also one of the most frequently misunderstood by her critics….
[T]he view [of many critics] is that Rand supposedly loved the rich and hated the poor, and that Atlas Shrugged is a story of the rich as Nietzschean heroes who should be freed to save the world from the mooching poor and middle class.
This, of course, is simply wrong. It’s not “the rich” who go on strike, but the producers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We are living Atlas Shrugged. So much in her book is played out by the 0bama gang.
That's very true, even though her writing and philosophizing was sophomoric. Go figure.
As I explain to people about why the chamber of commerce wants to destroy the tea party.
It isn’t because we’re opposed to wealth but because we’re opposed to wealth using government to regulate competition, enforce monopolies, and feed themselves through crony capitalism.
Basically, make all the money you want but don’t run to government to prevent me from doing the same.
Ah yes, because people who are so stunningly correct frequently suffer from a “sophomoric” philosophy.
As the inestimable Rand would say “Check your premise.”
As far as your opinion of her style goes, well let’s just say I’ll bet she’s sold more of her books than you have of yours. Rand requires effort and intelligence on the part of the reader. That’s very often too much for some. And apparently your are “some”.
Best of luck.
LOVE that photo.
She despised Reagan and didn’t vote for him, I admired Reagan.
I did not know that.
Oh... wait. She was a Russian refugee...
/johnny
I’ll never forget reading The Fountainhead for the first time. It was Christmas break, I was in grad school, and it was like being doused with cold water, and I mean that in a good way. I think I spent 3 days on the couch in my pajamas devouring that book. Then I went out and bought Atlas Shrugged immediately. Changed my life, she did.
She supported Ford in 1976 and opposed Reagan, and then opposed Reagan in 1980 and didn’t vote, she despised the man, and hated his anti-abortion views.
I went through a Rand phase in my early twenties and read most of her books. She claims to be an admirer of Aristotle, yet I see no evidence of her having read him, or having learned anything from him.
For example, she bases her philosophy on the law of identity, which is simply another way of describing "essences," which are impossible in a materialist worldview.
She never mentions the basic terms of his commonsense philosophy, such as substance/accidents, form/matter, and the Four Causes.
This page gives a great overview of the basics of Aristotelian philosophy.
Her books helped me a lot in political arguments during the late 1960s and early 1970s, regarding capitalism, just as my reading of history and military history, helped me defend a strong national defense, and fighting a better war in Vietnam, at the time.
And Reagan admired Rand. Rand was a big fan of Goldwater and even lauded Reagan when he backed Goldwater. But that couldn’t last because Rand was an atheist who supported abortion. Rand was right about many things, but her positions on religion and abortion are untenable.
Yes... it was just a whole new way of looking at things. For the longest time I’d accepted that there were only two sides: the Liberals and the Christian right. I knew I didn’t fit in with either bunch, and it was confusing for a while.
Howard Rourke wasn’t rich either.
She didn’t drive me away from God like that, I just took from her writings what I could use, other than that I had no interest in her.
For one think I didn’t know there was a “Christian Right” during the 60s, or any large portion of Americans who were anti-God.
Ayn Rand:
“I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word – i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose – see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion. (Ayn Rand Letter IV.2, 1975)”
In a May 23, 1966, letter William Vandersteel, president of the Ampower Corporation, expressed confidence that Reagan could win the presidency in 1968 and enclosed a pamphlet by Ayn Rand titled “Conservatism: An Obituary” written after the 1960 presidential campaign. In the essay Rand argues that many conservatives are opposed to statism but don’t seem to realize the only good alternative is capitalism.
Reagan’s letter:
William Vandersteel
New York, NY
May 23, 1966
Dear Mr. Vandersteel:
Thanks very much for the pamphlet. Am an admirer of Ayn Rand but hadn’t seen this study.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan
From Ronald Reagan: A Life in Letters
pp. 281-282
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.