Did she say these things because the Libertarian Party was fairly underdeveloped at the time or what? I also heard she voted for FDR at one point. FDR!!!!
She wasn't a fan of the libertarians for a number of reasons.
Ayn Rand associated the term "libertarian" primarily with anarchism. She considered anarchism/anarchists to be evil. She also considerred "libertarianism" to lack the necessary philosophical basis. It was only a political philosophy, not an all-encompassing philosophy such as Objectivism.
She criticized the Libertarian Party for espousing "her" political ideas, without accepting other tenets of Objectivism.
According to Nathaniel Branden, she also rejected the term "libertarianism" on aesthetic grounds.
Don't know about the FDR vote though.
------------------------- mir Minister of Campaigns
well, that makes sense I guess. She did vote for FDR though. I saw it on some Ayn Rand Institute site I think.
So, is what you're saying that she disliked libertarianism at thetime because it was flimsy, new, and essentially took her ideas out of context and did things she disagreed with?
She has many great political and economic views, and her books are good.
But she's a cold heartless bitch from what I've read about her.
Ha ya. I agree with both.
I agree with some of her ideas. Like capitalism is good. And that's honestly about it.
I dislike almost everything about Objectivism, though. It sounds good when you just hear about it, but it's much closer to a cult then an actual objective view point.
I also don't like how she was completely infallible in her own mind. Even when she was pretty much flying in the face of Objectivism.
As for her being a cold bitch: yeah. She convinced Nathaniel Branden to have an affair with her, and then when he cheats on her she kicks him out of her circle and ignores that he exists until she dies. All for following her lead.
But then, I don't like Rand, if you couldn't tell.
Alright, I'll confess my bias. I endorse Objectivism in its entirety. I may even name my first son Roark.
That said, I was actually pretty surprised by her views on libertarianism. The confusing thing, for me, was her personalization of Objectism. It seems contradictory to claim ownership to a philosophy, if one is to believe in objective truth.
As for the politics, I'll put it in her words: "I am interested in politics so that one day I won't have to be interested in politics." If she were still alive, I'd ask her how she intends to escape the status quo without political movement. ------------------------- Crasher rlj9 Crashys Czar
I'm no Randroid but Howard Roark is a hero of mine and the Fountainhead is one of my favorite books. -------------------------JA$ON Crasher-In-Chief
One more thought...I wonder what she would think about the Free State Project. ------------------------- Crasher rlj9 Crashys Czar
Speak for yourself, she loves me. Three times in one night in fact. -------------------------JA$ON Crasher-In-Chief
I don't think anyone should embrace Objectivism in its entirety. In fact, in the secluded world of philosophy, we make a point to say 'objectivity' and 'objectivistic' when discussing truth so as not to invoke Rand. I believe it was in "Intro to Objectivist Epistemology" where Rand basically defined Objectivism as a crude form of realism (direct realism). In other words, she's merely redescribing preexisting philosophical movements with a horrible mix of vocabulary ("axiomatic concepts" come to mind, which is a humorous confusion of universals with concepts). Apparently, according to Rand, something can be objective (universal) and yet won't exist without a concept of its existence. That subverts the very notion of what is 'objective' in the entire tradition of Western philosophy. She attempts to write along a philosophical vein and yet nothing would indicate that she has any knowledge of the philosophical tradition. The funniest thing is, she chides 'pragmatists' and yet the first pragmatist, William James, called universal truths concepts--useful figments of our cognitive needs--and Rand said precisely the same thing, only she maintained that universals were indeed objective. To Rand, anything is Objective if it is a validly informed opinion or if it corresponds enough with reality (correpondance theory in epistemology). Basically, something is true unless we can prove otherwise (known as contingent truth to pragmatists--the exact same concept). Rand, simply put, was an idiot with overriding personal biases and philosophical insecurities that for whatever reason prompted her to make a perversion of preexisting philosophical concepts. Anyone who calls himself an Objectivist in an attempt to seem philosophical is just blindly revealing how little he knows about philosophy.
I should note that I hate Rand in terms of philosophy, not economics/capitalism.
