Was Ayn Rand for Open Borders?

For over 30 years, I've been reading and re-reading Ayn Rand's books, both fiction and non-fiction, and I don't recall anything that suggests she was in favor of open borders. Furthermore, Ayn Rand died in 1982 – she never witnessed the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the steady stream of terrorist massacres throughout the great, historical cities of Europe and on American soil, or the large-scale invasion of so-called "refugees" into Europe. Islam and immigration were not cultural or political issues during her lifetime.

After Ayn Rand's death, her heir, Leonard Peikoff, formed the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). The most prominent of Objectivists followed Dr. Peikoff and are currently ensconced at the ARI today, advocating for open borders, seemingly in Ayn Rand's name.

Why is this of importance? Because most influential conservatives today have been greatly influenced by Ayn Rand's ideas, and so will future generations. And it would be disturbing if her legacy is being hijacked by what Milo Yiannopoulos calls "social justice warriors" (SJWs), just as the SJWs have hijacked the universities, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the corporate news media, sports, advertising, etc. Therefore, the question has to be asked: is Ayn Rand's name being fraudulently used to promote open borders? ARI Watch seems to believe so.

Ayn Rand did not see eye-to-eye with those who called themselves “Libertarians.” Of course, she didn’t see eye-to-eye with a lot of folks.

The fictional “Galt’s Gulch” certainly had controlled access.

Presumably, a society that operated under Objectivist principles would exercise control over who could enter its borders, but might welcome those who posed no threat to its principles.

Since the society would offer no welfare other than that afforded privately, then arguably the most productive might be attracted to immigrate.

Whoever wrote this has problems.

He can't separate the question of whether Ayn Rand would favor open borders from the question of whether open borders are a good thing or not.

She would.

They aren't.

If Ayn Rand opposed open borders it would contradict her whole philosophy.

So she didn't.

That doesn't mean she was right.

I have evolved from being more-or-less an open borders advocate in my youth to being an ardent Trump supporter in my “mature” years, so I can comment on at least my thinking.

There is a big difference between the romantic ideal of an open border and the reality of it.

And there is a big difference between an open border of a country where people have to make it on their own, families cooperating with families, and an open border of a hyper-legal socialist state such as we have become.

And there is a big difference between an open border where a few thousand people cross in both directions, and an open border where a few thousand go one way and millions upon millions go the other way.

The US is not an ethnic state per se, it is based upon philosophical principles that are available to anyone who is attracted to them and believes them. But they are not taught at all in any explicit fashion, and the people who do still believe in them are increasingly overwhelmed by both American-born youth who have not been taught them at all, or have been taught to despise them, combined with millions of people entering who have not been taught them and never will be. So our challenge is to get control of our border, so we aren’t swamped and replaced, and to get control of the education of succeeding generations so that what we believe isn’t lost as we leave this mortal coil.

Because most influential conservatives today have been greatly influenced by Ayn Rand's ideas, and so will future generations."

That would have been news to Russell Kirk, generally regarded as the man who set off the post WWII conservative renaissance.

An Encounter with Ayn Rand

August 1, 1962, Russell Kirk

Miss Ayn Rand is in the news nowadays. She has written two best-selling novels—Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead—and she has gotten up a curious philosophy which she calls “Objectivism.”

Recently she and I, with some other people, were on the same television program, Mr. Eric Sevareid moderating. Ayn Rand’s eyes glow with belief, and she still speaks with something of an accent, though she came from Russia as a child. She hates collectivism and sentimentality, and thinks the modern world ought to get rid of “altruism” and exalt self-interest.

Miss Rand and I argued that the mass-state means a new slavery, and that what often is called “social justice” today really amounts to nothing better than penalizing the able and industrious, through legislation, to reward the slack and shiftless—who do have votes.

But we disagreed thoroughly as to the whole purpose of life and of the civil social order. Ayn Rand literally would put the dollar sign in place of the cross: She does just that in Atlas Shrugged. And I say that life is not worth living without love, sacrifice, charity: we human beings were made for brotherhood (which does not exclude healthy competition), and if we live only for our own petty little selves, our souls shrivel.

Though I have nothing against free enterprise (which I believe to be a support of other freedoms, as well as the most efficient economic system), one cannot sanely make the accumulation of dollars the whole aim of existence. “Thou canst not serve both God and Mammon.” Mammon is thoroughgoing selfishness, dedication to self-satisfaction. The Cross is the symbol of sacrifice, suffering, heroism. The dollar sign is the symbol of profit, which is all right with me, so long as it is honest; but material profit isn’t happiness, let alone our whole duty. We really can’t live by bread alone.

Miss Rand is an atheist, despising religion as “non-objective.” But she burns with a fire curiously religious in intensity. She has an inverted religion—an ideology of efficiency and self-satisfaction—in economics, in politics, in sex. (Ideology, by the way, means pseudo religion, the substitution of political dogmas for religious doctrines.) And that way lies madness.

As Dante knew, it is love that moves this world and all the stars. Babies, though well nourished, can die for lack of love. Sexual relationships without love of spirit are only violent conquests of other human beings—as in Miss Rand’s novels. And the man who loves only dollars, or his own pleasures, loves simply dead things. Only other human beings are truly lovable. By all means, let us get away from sentimentality; but let’s not throw out our hearts when we react against collectivism.

“I have never advocated that anyone has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force. If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim. You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. You cannot claim that anything that others may do – not directly to you but simply through competition let us say – is against your self interest and therefore you want to stop competition dead. That is the kind of self-interest you are not entitled to. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be defended.

“But above all, aren’t you dropping a more personal context? [At this point she begins to become intense.] How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted [becomes very intense] when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were.” -- Ayn Rand, at Ford Hall Forum, 1973

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.