Replies

“Ayn Rand was against totalitarianism - be it communist/socialist or religious.

You and I probably agree on 98% of issues. But this probably isn’t one of them... :^)”

I am sure there is quite a lot we could agree on. I like your “about” page and the quotations you have selected. I am certainly not trying to just argue, or put words in your mouth.

I was simply trying to bring up my own experience with Rand, and what I think I have learned from her:

She was certainly against totalitarianism, but she had blinders on when it came to the religious, and could ONLY see it as totalitarian. She went to great lengths to convince herself, and others, that a Morality could not only exist, but would, in fact, be obvious to all, without religious belief. It would be necessary for the “live and let live” existence she preferred. I can only state that I was not convinced, in any way, by her arguments. I do not believe that Morality exists in the Universe beyond the belief of Man.

She did show, however, in “Atlas Shrugged” (and I expect, her other writings) incredible insight into human nature, particularly in her antagonists. It opened my eyes to a lot of what is seen around us, today. Why didn’t James Taggart just let Dagny run the company? Why doesn’t Hillary Clinton just retire to the Bahamas with her hundreds of millions? It’s because they CAN’T. Even Rand doesn’t explain why, but she accurately portrays the escalating nature of their irrational and dangerous response to unfolding events.

The conclusion I have come to, is that she is portraying the expression of forms of mental illness. Hillary won’t just go away, to live a life most people could only dream of, because she is bat-shit crazy. The more Reality fails to comply with her warped perception of it, the crazier she is and acts.

This brings us back to Anti-Sodomy laws. I too, believed with you, long ago, why not “live and let live”? What business is it of mine?

Well, for one thing, in my lifetime we can see the results. Homosexuality has transformed from a shameful mental illness affecting an extremely tiny minority into a national force that attacks the rest of society with impunity. I believe that this is exactly the pattern of escalation that Rand portrays in the antagonists in her books. They don’t want to “live and let live”. They don’t know how. They were contained, by a Morality that Rand rejects and cannot understand. But now, they have been unleashed, like the “dogs of war” to wreak havoc for the masters who have freed them. I don’t know about you, but I begin to see a wisdom in such moral laws.

I have come to classify Rand, and those like her, as “baskers”. They bask in the freedom, security and prosperity of a society whose moral underpinnings have made that society possible. They take this for granted, without ever understanding the sources of the blessings they enjoy. In Rand’s case, great effort is even exerted to attribute these sources to something else.

The Founders knew the dangers of Government of Religion. Government could, and had, oppressed in the name of Religion as much as any cause. They wisely prohibited Government from enforcing a religion. They did not prohibit religion, however, and in fact drew upon a belief in God to place the rights of people beyond reach of the government. They used a Morality derived from a belief in God to define and limit the purpose of Government.

I am sure that I am not telling you anything that you do not, already, know. I just think that Rand tried, and ultimately failed, to unify her understanding of human nature with life in America and totalitarian countries. Her rejection of Religion would not let her put it in its proper place, as the Founders had done, as the moral base upon which just government stands.