To a amateur it seems heartless and cruel, but most of her writings were about the individual vs mob. She treated the mob or the masses as an individual character. It was more of a critique of mob mentality- from that perspective democracy is criticized.

Democracy absent individual freedom leads to genocide, slavery, and internment camps. Obviously she was traumatized by her mother and the politics at the time. She rallied for exceptionalism over the masses.

The problem with this piece was that it seems to depart from two book reviews and go into a Rand rant.

From a novelist perspective she could do better, but from a philosophical perspective she was dead on. Her works resonate with people because we all see it in action first hand. We all know who the looters, moochers, and producers are. Rand rallied against the idea of mob rule whether it was in the form of democracy or communism. In the novels, elitism is more akin to self confidence and self governance.

In Rands mind the elite or strong were the ones who prepared, planned, and executed a strategy for surviving Katrina. The weak were the ones who did nothing for themselves and expected a rescue. Ir is self sufficiency vs drag on society. Rand experience first hand what happens when the drags of society are the ruling class. You get your business stolen from you twice.

There is a point in there. Where you say "We all know who the mooches and who the producers are" Or something similar. Tell me who you think the mooches are. Who are the producers? I bet we disagree. I bet everybody on this thread would disagree with everybody else. And I guarantee we would ALL disagree w/ Rand. At least the name of her "philosophy" is apt. Egoism indeed.

No, her philosophy is actually worse than her writing, though the judgment of either need not depend on the other. Objectivism is stupid, shallow, ridiculous, and utterly devoid of anything worth basing a society on. In fact, you don't need Objectivism to be an Objectivist. You just need to be the strongest predator. Rand's philosophy makes any question of law or rights completely irrelevant.

Your whole philosophical premise - and the silliness of the conceptions embodied within it can be found in the internal contradictions of this following paragraph:

Democracy absent individual freedom leads to genocide, slavery, and internment camps. Obviously she was traumatized by her mother and the politics at the time. She rallied for exceptionalism over the masses.

Like Rand, you confuse individual liberty with unconstrained action. And you confuse democracy with the act of voting. Democracy is inherently the combined acts of free individuals CHOOSING to act in concert.

And the notion that Exceptionalism should exist over the masses as some sort of celebration of individualism is itself a contradiction. If the Individual is what matters, then everyone is exceptional - yet that is exactly what Randroids oppose.

Ir is self sufficiency vs drag on society. Rand experience first hand what happens when the drags of society are the ruling class. You get your business stolen from you twice.

Again you are confused. Self Sufficiency itself is a drag on society since it is inherently anti-social.

And Rand experienced the same sort of power dynamic she advocated. What is curious is that when she was under the boot of the Ubermenschen of the Soviet, she did not consider herself that lice that they saw her as.

From a philosphical perspective, Rand was a non-entity. I once tried to find something on her on the philosophy shelf in the library. In the "History of Philosophy" was nothing, also in "American Philosophy" and "20th Century American Philosophers." I finally found a reference to "Objectivism" in a popular compendium called "Words of Wisdom" or something like that. It had all sorts of excerpts from Hindu and Zen books and also the greatest hits of Socrates and some other Western thinkers, together with a lot of New Age drivel. Way in the back was a glossary with a paragraph devoted to the philosophy of Objectivity, which for some reason had been mis-labelled Objectivism, and had no connection with Rand. So much for her contribution to philosophy.

Rand's big deal was taking some commonly accepted things and declaring them to be absolute moral values. Anyone here opposed to "capitalism?" I thought capitalism was great, until Rand started to describe a totally un-regulated economy in which caveat emptor was the only rule and the government was forbidden to collect taxes. Somehow, the government was supposed to provide for the national defense and a few other essential services, but it could collect no taxes. So how were we supposed to pay for the government? Don't ask Rand, she just declared the moral imperatives and left the sticky details to others.

Or "individualism." That's great, I'm for that, you're for that . . . who is against "individualism?" I was, as soon as Rand defined it as an absolute value. Society is a compromise between the needs of the group and those of the individual. Simply declaring individual rights absolute is not going to work. There are no absolute rights in the Bill of Rights, according to the Supreme Court, and there is no individual right which will not trespass on someone else if treated as an absolute. This is why Rand preferred writing novels, she created totally unreal situations in which unreal heros could solve unreal problems.

The "looters" and "moochers" are us, because we all benefit from a society which by its nature includes both rights and obligations. The "producers" are also us, because there is hardly one who has not contributed to society or (in the case of newborn babies) is not going to. Even Rand herself contributed something, though mainly by way of a negative example.

"I'm the man, and you're the man, and he's the man as well!"

TOOL, "Aenema"

I agree, society is a cooperative venture.

Ayn Rand was an immature woman with an immature philosophy that happens to be occassionally insightful. Though I haven't been able to read Rand since high school, reading the Fountainhead (and studying architecture) instilled in me a very real desire to be a "producer" and to do so as originally and un-imitatively as possible. In other words, it worked for me at a time when I was immature--yet it has stuck with me since.

Also dug Rush's 2112, based on Rand's Anthem.

Maybe Rand is good for the schoolkids?

Isn't it crazy to think of Alan Greenspan at her feet?

Isn't it crazy to think of Alan Greenspan at her feet?

SCARY is the word that comes to my mind. I read her first when I was about 10 (Anthem) and though at first she seemed really spot on, within a few weeks niggling doubts started to creep in. And if as a 10yo I could see the flaws, its scary to think that Greenspan as a newly married adult could not.

and that it took almost 6 decades for him to come up with what I as a 10yo could come up with????

Tell me who you think the mooches are.

Anyone who receives "free" stuff from the government or is a criminal (ACORN)

Who are the producers?

People who provide jobs and or services to the community for a fee. (College Professor)

I bet we disagree. I bet everybody on this thread would disagree with everybody else. And I guarantee we would ALL disagree w/ Rand.

As if the history of philosophy is based on agreement.

Objectivism is stupid, shallow, ridiculous, and utterly devoid of anything worth basing a society on.

So is communism yet it seems pretty popular for many white house staff.

Rand's philosophy makes any question of law or rights completely irrelevant.

In Rand's world the only real right is to life (other rights are derived from this one). This is a long held inalienable right, so Rand wasn't breaking new ground. She did however take that right to it's logical conclusion.

Democracy is inherently the combined acts of free individuals CHOOSING to act in concert.

Democracy is simply the rule of the majority. Liberty and Democracy are not the same. Liberty can lead to Democracy, but Democracy doesn't necessarily lead to liberty. In any case this is a semantic issue- feel free to read more into Democracy than thats there.

If the Individual is what matters, then everyone is exceptional - yet that is exactly what Randroids oppose.

Individual life is what matters. being exceptional is not the point. As Obama said were all exceptional now.

Self Sufficiency itself is a drag on society since it is inherently anti-social.

Says you. How is it anti-social? Are you arguing dependency as a social good?

From a philosphical perspective, Rand was a non-entity

I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think she was in the pantheon of great philosophers. she is basically Nietzsche-lite. A better way to think about it is applied Nietzsche. Rand meshes Nietzsche's ethics into her own political philosophy. Keep in mind all of the political experiments at the time such as the various flavors of communism and fascism.

the government was forbidden to collect taxes

Taxation was to be voluntary, not forced. In essence government was run as a business or service. In principle a great idea- in practice a little more difficult. But not that difficult. For some government services would be more like a service- like the fire department or police. Others would be more direct like education. We use Toll roads or the gas tax are excellent examples of Rand's voluntary tax. If you don't drive or ride then you don't have to pay the tax for the road use. Its is voluntary. paying for a military is where it gets real sticky.

There are no absolute rights in the Bill of Rights

Correct, the BoR are CIVIL rights. The Declaration of Independence has "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and they are considered natural rights, thus absolute. Again Rand isn't being original by stating life is and absolute right, Locke beat her to it by a few hundred years.

This is why Rand preferred writing novels, she created totally unreal situations in which unreal heros could solve unreal problems.

She wrote novels because she was more interested in applied philosophy. Keep in mind during this time writing philosophy was "man's" work. So publishing a novel by a woman, still no small task, was probably the best way to get published. This goes on today- that is why it is JK Rowling and not Joanne Rowling.

The "looters" and "moochers" are us, because we all benefit from a society which by its nature includes both rights and obligations. The "producers" are also us, because there is hardly one who has not contributed to society or (in the case of newborn babies) is not going to.

True some people can be all 3, Al Gore comes to mind, but most people are clearly defined. Look at this way a society of just moochers will fail. A society with just looters will fail. A society of producers will not fail. This allegory is told in many children tales. The Ant and the Grasshopper, the 3 Little Pigs, or Lazy Jack. Working hard and volunteering your time or resources are noble ideals used in children stories to build character. There are no children stories about using democracy to steal money from group and give it to another.

Tell me who you think the mooches are.

Anyone who receives "free" stuff from the government or is a criminal (ACORN)

so GWB is a mooch? Every corporation is a mooch? Every wealthy person is a mooch?

And where is your evidence that ACORN is "a criminal"? We know Okeefe broke the law. What laws has ACORN broken?

Objectivism is stupid, shallow, ridiculous, and utterly devoid of anything worth basing a society on.

So is communism yet it seems pretty popular for many white house staff.

Can you back up your claim of the White House staff thinking communism is popular?

Self Sufficiency itself is a drag on society since it is inherently anti-social.

Says you. How is it anti-social? Are you arguing dependency as a social good?

Definitionally so. Society is the interaction and cross dependency of individuals. Those who are unable to interact with others and make connections with others have what is know as anti-social personality disorder ie by definition anti social. Self Sufficiency means no dependence on anyone else. by defintion meets 3 of the criteria (1,5,7) QED anti social.

If the Individual is what matters, then everyone is exceptional - yet that is exactly what Randroids oppose.

Individual life is what matters. being exceptional is not the point. As Obama said were all exceptional now.

Except under Rand it doesn't. It matters not if your actions reduce the life of someone else. Hence INDIVIDUAL life doesn't matter. Only power matters.

If the Individual is what matters, then everyone is exceptional - yet that is exactly what Randroids oppose.

Individual life is what matters. being exceptional is not the point.

Complete and intentional misreading of Rand. Exceptionality is all that matters. mooches aren't exceptional. Atlas Shrugged the exceptionals go on strike. Fountainhead the Exceptional architectural vision is more important than life sustaining housing for other individuals

From a philosphical perspective, Rand was a non-entity

I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think she was in the pantheon of great philosophers. she is basically Nietzsche-lite

Nietzsche-lite is too generous. Tarantino-lite perhaps.

the government was forbidden to collect taxes

Taxation was to be voluntary, not forced.

Taxation is voluntary. Its a contract. You don't like society - leave. Atlas Shrugged gets it wrong. Society will do just fine. The elites - absent support of society will fail.

True some people can be all 3, Al Gore comes to mind, but most people are clearly defined. Look at this way a society of just moochers will fail. A society with just looters will fail. A society of producers will not fail. This allegory is told in many children tales. The Ant and the Grasshopper

And the allegory largely gets it wrong. A society of just producers fails the moment that situations change. Reality is that your definitions of "producers" matches the diagnostic criteria of Anti Social Personality Disorder (ie psychopath) to a tee. And a Society of psychopaths will not succeed.

"A society with just looters will fail. A society of producers will not fail."

No such thing! This is one of those Randian arguments, in which everyone is either A or B . . . totally ridiculous! Rand made a career by ignoring "objective reality!"